AF-S 80-200mm f/2.8

<p>Is any version of AF-S 80-200mm f/2.8 has VR? I am using D 7000. SHall I go for this one or 70-300? </p>

<p>There is only one AF-S version of the 80-200/2.8 but that lens doesn't have VR. The VR 70-300mm is not really of comparable optical quality to the f/2.8 zooms especially towards its long end (where it is f/5.6).</p>

<p>The VR 70-200/4 has VR and is excellent optically and intermediate in price. It is my favorite of the Nikon telezooms; very portable, excellent image quality, inconspicuous and practical for most outdoor situations. For indoors and some night photography you may need f/2.8 or faster, but for most general outdoor use I think the f/4 is a great choice.</p>

<p>Thanks Ilkka. For candid portraits and wildlife?</p>

I use it for candids, architectural details, landscape, in-flight, travel, outdoor events etc. I think for wildlife you can do some with the 70-200mm especially with a DX camera but may also need a longer lens for close-ups of some animals if that's what you do. I can't really help with the animal close up stuff but lenses to consider for that include Nikon's 300/4, 80-400, 300/2.8, 500/4 etc. some of these are very expensive.

 

 

For candid portraits however the 70-200/4 is excellent. Because of its unthreatening size you can be closer to your subject without distressing your subject. I used to use 180/2.8 for this, but now I prefer the 70-200/4.

<p>For candid portraits, I just wanted to point out the merits of aperture: if you don't have control over what's behind the person you're shooting, being able to blur away ugly scenery is very useful. There are apparently problems sourcing replacement parts for the 80-200 AFS now (reported on this forum - I have no personal experience) which might discourage you from getting one. If you can afford it, on a DX camera, I'd give serious consideration to the 70-200 VR f/2.8 mk 1, which is appreciably cheaper (used) than the current version. The main difference for the new one, as I see it, is that the corners of the new version are acceptably sharp at 200mm on FX - which is useful if you have an FX camera, but not if you're happy with DX.<br />

<br />

If you don't mind losing a little focus speed compared with the latest Nikkor (if I'm correctly remembering the differences), Sigma and Tamron have some optically good, recent 70-200 f/2.8 lenses that are cheaper than Nikon's.<br />

<br />

For wildlife, I'd generally look to go longer than 200mm even on DX, unless you've already got a 300 f/4 or similar. It depends on the size and proximity of your wildlife, of course. If you can afford the new 80-400, that appears to be the nearest thing to a "budget" way to go forward - pending reports on the new big telephotos from Sigma and Tamron.<br />

<br />

Of course, the f/4 is appreciably cheaper and lighter than the 70-200 f/2.8 lenses, and I'm not going to claim that the 70-200 f/2.8 VR 2 is perfect wide open (though it's extremely usable), so you may still find it the better trade-off if you don't find yourself needing to lose the background too much. I hope that helps.</p>

<p>I had the 80-200 f/2.8 AFS for many years. It was an amazingly good lens. its only problem today is the lack of parts if anything happens to the focus motor. Mine now sits on a shelf as a paperweight because the focus motor started to act up. Its still a really good manual focus lens..... I replaced it with the latest Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 and I could not be happier. Shooting a resolution chart using my D4 the Sigma is so close to the new Nikon in sharpness and color that there is no way I could justify paying the extra to buy the Nikon. And as someone who shoots mostly sports with this lens I have zero issues with the speed or accuracy of it's auto focus... I would look long and hard at the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>For candid portraits and wildlife?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Generally speaking, 300mm is on the short side for wildlife. Candid portraits and wildlife are best served with different lenses. 80-200 should be good for candid portraits. 200mm is very limiting for wildlife.</p>

<p>My 80-200/2.8 AFS was serviced five months ago. Two shops that I spoke with, one of which did the service, had no concerns about providing replacement parts.</p>

<p>No VR on the 80-200. But I would still take it above the 70-300. 2.8 vs 5.6 is simply no contest, and not just in low light. Slower apertures impair AF, bokeh, viewfinder brightness, ability to use teleconverters, etc. If you want VR and don't want to spend the big bucks on the Nikon 70-200, try one of the third-party brands but stick with 2.8.</p>

<p>I have had the 80-200/2.8 AF-S, 70-200/2.8 AF-S VR1, and now have the 70-200/4 AF-S VR. Although I enjoy using fast lenses, I am going to agree with Ilkka here. I find that I take the new f/4 version with me much more often than I took the large, heavy 2.8 zooms. Image rendition with the new f/4VR lens is outstanding. I don't miss having a 2.8 zoom much, since I have 180/2.8 and 105/2 lenses for those occasions when fast glass is truly beneficial (not that often).</p>

<p>My friend has the 70-300VR. Others seem to have good opinions of that lens, but the one I have access to is not that great.</p>

<p>Lilly</p>

<p>If the SW motor goes out on it there are no new replacement parts unless the shop has one as NOS. My lens went to a shop and from the shop to Nikon and then back to me with a no parts available notice. I know several other people who have had the same problem.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Candid portraits and wildlife are best served with different lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm with Shun here.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>80-200 should be good for candid portraits.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Could be a bit on the long side on a DX body. Unfortunately, the Sigma 50-150/2.8 is as big as the 70-200/2.8 - so no weight or size advantage when giving up some range. Personally, I have had some good experience using a 150/2.8 instead of a 70-200/2.8 for candid shooting.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>For candid portraits, I just wanted to point out the merits of aperture: if you don't have control over what's behind the person you're shooting, being able to blur away ugly scenery is very useful.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Certainly true - and one reason why I have some trouble giving up my 70-200/2.8 VR for the f/4 version. I would really like to carry less weight around, especially when traveling - but then there's that pesky desire to not give up f/2.8.</p>

<p>Thanks all for important information. Generally I take portraits and general stuff using my 50mm 1.4. Occasional wildlife when I cross the highway through the forest. My question on 80-200 is if it is of an earlier version and parts are not available, why Nikon India still selling it? See the link below:<br>

http://www.nikon.co.in/en_IN/product/nikkor-lenses/fx-format/zoom/af-zoom-nikkor-80-200mm-f2-8d-ed</p>

 

<p>Ahhh<br>

Anil<br>

That is the AF-D version and not the AFS version. The AF-D version is still in production and parts are available. It is also a fine lens and will do very well for you.</p>

<p>What is the difference Michael? </p>

<p>The AF-D needs to be used on a camera with a built in focus motor. The AFS has the motor built into the lens. Depending on the camera body the AFS can be faster and more accurate to focus then the AFD. With that said I have used both to shoot sports and never really had a problem with the AF-D. Well okay there is one problem with the AF-D. The ring to change it from AF to manual focus is week and is known to break. Otherwise it is a great lens.</p>

<p>AF-S means there is a silent-wave auto-focus motor inside the lens so that the lens does not depend on the auto-focus motor on the camera body. AF and AF-D lenses have no motor inside the lens.</p>

<p>A few early AF bodies such as the N8008/F801 cannot AF with AF-S lenses but more importantly, the current low-end DX bodies such as the D3000 and D5000 series have no AF motor on the body so that they can only AF with AF-S (and the earlier AF-I) lenses. You must have an AF motor somewhere for the lens to auto focus.</p>

<p>Thanks all. Hope this one is better than 70-200 f 4?</p>

<p>The 70-200mm/f4 AF-S VR is an excellent lens, but it is fairly expensive for an f4 zoom as its price is in the same range as a few third-party 70-200mm/f2.8. Its advantage and disadvantage are both due to the fact that it is an f4: it'll never give you f2.8 but it is also lighter and more compact than any 70-200mm/f2.8.</p>

<p>See my review on photo.net: http://www.photo.net/reviews/nikon-70-200-f4-ed-vr-af-s-zoom-lens-review</p>