80-200mm/2.8D ED on DSLR

<p>All,<br>

I like to share my recent experience of using Nikin Service with you.<br>

I bought a new Nikon 80-200mm/2.8D ED from KEH.com in October of 2009. Before that, I returned two Excellent grade used ones due to obvious back-focus issues. The new one also got the similar AF issue. I tested the AF using <a href="http://focustestchart.com/focus21.pdf">http://focustestchart.com/focus21.pdf</a> I have other lenses and more than one DLSR bodies. All other lens-body combinations are fine. So, it is indeed the 80-200's own issue.<br>

Last month I sent the lens to Nikon Service to Melville, NY for repair. It is still in extented warrenty. The lens came back in less than 2 weeks. <br>

Now the AF is more accurate. Maybe there is still a tad of back-focus. It was a "Rank B2" repair, meaning replacing major components?<br>

The interesting thing is a note that came back with the lens. <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/10788611">http://www.photo.net/photo/10788611</a><br>

"Older lens not consistently sharp on DSLR"?? Any one heard of this before?</p><div></div>

<p>Which camera body are you using? Can you use the AF fine-tune to get this a little more under control? Just curious.</p>

<p>I had trouble with the two-ring 80-200 on my D70 - only above about 180mm and only when close to the minimum focus distance. No such problem on the D200 (2 bodies) or D300. A friend had serious focus issues when using the two-ring on a D80 - he send lens and camera to Nikon and they came back perfect.</p>

<p>It does seem they know of problems on a particular body or series of bodies.</p>

<p>A simple search will show the net is repleat with information concerning the 80-200 BF problem.</p>

<p>My friend bought one a few weeks ago and asked me to test it for him.<br>

It was the worst BF I've ever seen. He returned it, got another and it is perfect on the D-300.<br>

There is obviously some serious variance copy to copy.</p>

<p>The D-70/ 80-200 combo<br>

was even worse from what I've read.</p>

<p>I only tested on D100 and D2h. But AF of the much older 70-210/F4 is accurate on these bodies.</p>

<p>I sent my lens to Nikon New Zealand, it was within specs after paying a $50US equiv assessment fee. </p>

<p>If you need to use FL of say 120mm or longer, you HAVE to be 15ft away or more. Regardless what f stop you use. A f/8 or f/11 does help but still it is not tack in focus. I have yet sold it. Happens on the D70 and the super D2h.</p>

<p>I got the same letter from Nikon when I sent in 135mm f2 DC under warranty due to front focus issue (with D700, can't make it right even with +20 on AF fine tune). I undersood that Nikon is telling me to give it up, and I sold the lens with very loss on *Bay. I NEED 135mm lens (it is the gap in my lens line up), and I wish for "better" 135mm AF lens... D3 maybe one of the solutions (as many D3 users seem to have perfect AF with 135mm f2 DC).....</p>

<p>I must have gotten a good AF 80-200 2.8 ED. No issues to date mounted on a D300s. Whew,</p>

<p>Mine worked well on D700 and D300. That said, the new VRII is leaps and bounds better - sharpness and the overall image contrast and color are much better. </p>

<p>I'll concede that AF-S technology is big a improvement over their screw-driver system, but that letter sounds like a nice way to say, "Our first AF system was poorly-implemented and we don't want to deal with it anymore. Go away."</p>

<p>I was seriously considering an 80-200 AF-D, but this is really turning me off of it. Poor form, Nikon.</p>

<p>Is this the two-ring version?</p>

<p>AF-D 2 ring was my copy. I thought I could get a f/2.8 tele zoom cheaply so I bought mine new. Only to sell it. I don't do much events, streets, sports, so I thought I didn't need AFS and or VR. I guess I may just need to get a VRII now. </p>

<p>I thought that I could get a cheaper 80-200/2.8D and save the money and get a 200/2 and 300/2.8.</p>

<p>Sample variation appears to be more various than usual with this lens. I'm finding mine sharp enough, but probably the 70-200 VR II would sharper yet. Thing is it's over a thousand dollars more. </p>

<p>You're lucky they found something wrong with it. Nearly always, the lenses come back untouched because, according to Nikon's evaluation, they are "within spec". It's worth noting that there is no adjustment for these lenses unlike the ADF-S type. If you send the camera in with the 80-200, they can tune the body toward the lens, but this can have undesirable effects on your other, properly functioning lenses.</p>

<p>I still have one of these 80-200 AF-D lenses sitting in my gear cabinet, barely used. The only reason I've kept it is it works great on my F100.</p>

<p>Yes, it is the two-ring version. Same as this one,<br>

<a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/124669-USA/Nikon_1986_80_200mm_f_2_8_ED_AF_D.html">http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/124669-USA/Nikon_1986_80_200mm_f_2_8_ED_AF_D.html</a></p>

<p>Yes, it is the two-ring version. Same as this one,<br>

<a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/124669-USA/Nikon_1986_80_200mm_f_2_8_ED_AF_D.html">http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/124669-USA/Nikon_1986_80_200mm_f_2_8_ED_AF_D.html</a></p>