How can I tell if this lens is a D version or not - Please help :)

<p>I have a lens I've received a question on I can't answer for sure. Can someone please help me & tell me if this is a D lens or not....</p>

<p><img src="http://lilknytt.zenfolio.com/img/s2/v73/p1411981638-4.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>larger version of it can be seen here if it will help <br>

http://lilknytt.zenfolio.com/p502131697/h54292146#h54292146</p>

<p>Please help :)</p>

 

<p>Mk. I non-D model, i.e. the first version of the AF 80~200/2.8.</p>

<p>The "D" models have "AF NIKKOR 80~200mm 1:2.8<strong>D</strong>" on the nameplate.</p>

<p>OK Michael - what does the ED then stand for?</p>

<p><a href="http://support.nikonusa.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/9919/~/glossary-of-nikkor-lens-terms">http://support.nikonusa.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/9919/~/glossary-of-nikkor-lens-terms</a></p>

 

<p>For future reference there are 4 models of the autofocus 80~200/2.8.</p>

<p>Mk. I (1988~1992): 80~200/2.8 ED, non-D, one-touch zoom/focus, no tripod mount, knurled focus limit ring behind the nameplate.<br /> Mk. II (1992~1996): 80~200/2.8D ED, AF-D one-touch zoom/focus, no tripod mount, sliding focus limit switch to left of name plate.<br /> Mk. III (1996~20xx): 80~200/2.8D ED, AF-D, two-ring design w/tripod collar, current model<br /> Mk.IV (1998~2005): AF-S 80~200/2.8D IF-ED (discontinued AF-S model w/internal focus)</p>

<p>ED is for ED (Extra-Low Dispersion) glass. Has nothing to do with "D" distance encoding. See the link that Rob provided above.</p>

<p>ED stands for the incorporation of one or more high refraction index glass elements (Extra low Dispersion) within the lens design. </p>

<p>I would be curious to see if anyone has compared the focusing speed of the AF version 1 type pictured to the push-pull D version that followed. Though the push-pull D that I had focused slower than the AF-S version I replaced it with, I found the D adequate for high school soccer, track, and so on, in good light.</p>

<p>Thanks Michael :)</p>

<p>Thanks for your help :) I've notified the person who asked the question. It's definitely the non D version. I should check on year of manufacturing - - I had that link somewhere once.... I'll see if I can find it as well.<br>

I know it was fast enough for me to focus on the horses when they were running around. Thanks again. </p>

Best reference I know of to sort this kind of thing out is photosynthesis

 

http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/lenses.html

 

Pictures included if you click on the link for each lens.

<p>Only the non-D version has a front element that rotates along with focusing. As Michael points out, it was in production for only 4 years.</p>

<p>I used to have one that I bought back in 1990.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"Only the non-D version has a front element that rotates along with focusing."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>No Shun. All three versions (Mk.I through Mk.III) have rotating front elements. :-)</p>

<p>Only the AF-S version is IF. However Nikon was rather "clever" with the design of the front barrel of the two AF-D versions, and the front element group rotates (and extends) within an outer sleeve during focus.</p>

<p>The filter threads are on this outer sleeve, so <strong>filters</strong> do not rotate with focusing. ;-) :-D</p>

<p>Ok Michael, you win. :-)</p>

<p>Thanks everyone :)</p>

<p>That's a really good lens. </p>

<p>A question more than a response: Does it really matter?<br>

Apart from the non-rotating filter thread, if the optics are identical, then why would having the D version be much of an advantage? It's not as if this lens is likely to be coupled with the use of direct on-camera flash.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I know it was fast enough for me to focus on the horses when they were running around.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>@ Lil<br>

This is natural as the real difference between non-D and D lenses seems to be the subject's distance information provided by D lenses and used by the camera to calculate flash exposure. I don't know if there is any other significant difference but for sure some of the intervening members will have a good information on this.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"...why would having the D version be much of an advantage?"</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Rumour (or internet mythology) has it that the non-D version (Mk.I) has the slowest autofocus of all four models. I read somewhere, long ago, that the Mk.II AF-D has slightly faster autofocus than the original. Whether there is any validity to that, I have no idea. I have only used the current 2-ring (Mk.III) model.</p>

<p>While all (three) versions of the non-AF-S 80-200mm/f2.8 with auto focus are optically identical, I also have heard that Nikon manages to gradually improve AF speed. However, the only version I have used for any meaningful period of time is the very first one, i.e. the non-D Lil shows in her image, so I too have no reference for a personal comparison. I can confirm that AF speed and accuracy for version 1 was poor, but keep in mind that I was mainly using it with the F4 and N8008 back in the earlier 1990's, i.e. AF stone age, but even on the later F5, AF was slow and tend to hunt quite a bit. In 1999 I upgraded to the 80-200mm/f2.8 AF-S and it was a major improvement concerning AF.</p>

<p>And I paid a wopping $999 for my 80-200mm/f2.8 AF, pre-D back in 1989. It was a hot, difficult-to-find lens back then.</p>

<p>I see the 70-200 f/4 lens is now reviewed at Photozone. It's interesting to compare the 80-200/2.8 with that lens. I'd be interested to know if anyone has experience now with both, and can compare their optical performance. Aside from AF-s, the 80-200/2.8 used looks competitive at first glance. But I've never used either.</p>

<p>The Mark 1 is much easier to find than the Mark 2, and generally the cheapest 80-200. Unfortunately, I took a very long time to get around to testing mine, and it's got unreliable aperture problems. (I haven't dared ask the shop to refund me after a year, though I might offload it for parts - currently it's a paperweight and intermittent lens cap for my F5.)<br />

<br />

I've also heard rumour that the mark 2 focusses at near the speed of the mark 3, though I've never seen a mark 2 in the flesh. The mark 3 is definitely <i>much</i> faster at focus than the mark 1, and fast enough for at least some sports. I also prefer tho two-ring handling (it saves me sliding accidentally), though if I used it in manual focus more I might not. I believe the optics are identical, and I'm not very impressed at short range (at least with mine) - at longer range it appears to be a great deal better. I suspect the AF-S is appreciably better under any circumstances, let alone the 70-200s, but it's more expensive and harder to find.<br />

<br />

If you paid AF-D money for a mark 1, complain - I've seen them go for roughly half the price. Assuming yours works, it should be perfectly decent so long as you have no plans for sports or wildlife, but if you want fast moving subjects it's not the lens to pick. Even my F5 can't focus mine very fast.<br />

<br />

Sorry, no 70-200 f/4...</p>