I bought a relic and it is "good."

Always finding an excuse not to lug the Nikon 70-200VR because of it's length. It screwed up almost every bag I liked.

 

On a whim, I picked up an old push-pull Nikon 80-200/2.8/Non-D boat anchor. "It's a few inches shorter." Used correctly it's sharper across the whole frame, even at 2.8.

 

Question; I think it's not advisable, but is it safe to mount it to a D800 without a support yoke on a tripod? By the serial number, this lens is close to 30 years old, and aside from minimal dust, the innards are perfect.

 

Thank you Nikon. Every now and then your backwards technology saved me from spending $K's of dollars.

<humor>

This lens is listed at around 3 pounds. Neither Nikon nor any other manufacturer (that I'm aware of) states the design loads for their mounts, so there's no ready reference. Even if there were, it would be given in inch-pounds or Newton-meters, since that is the actual measure of the mount's structural capacity. Generally, if a lens is manufactured and sold without a tripod collar then it's expected to be used successfully without that piece of kit, particularly on bodies by the same manufacturer. Your tripod head might actually be the limiting factor if the moment imposed by the mounted lens exceeds the head's capacity. My personal opinion is that this is more likely to happen before you are in any danger of damaging the mount. Obviously, when shooting hand-held, you will be supporting both the lens and the body, so this is not an issue.

There are adjustable lens supports available for use on tripods. IMO, it would be prudent to use one with your pumper 80-200/2.8. When you use this lens by hand, most of the weight is supported by your left hand on the lens. On a tripod, the lens mount bears the weight, plus any force need to zoom or operate the lens.

 

Balancing the load in this manner makes it easier to point it acccurately, with less springback.

On a whim, I picked up an old push-pull Nikon 80-200/2.8/Non-D boat anchor. "It's a few inches shorter." Used correctly it's sharper across the whole frame, even at 2.8.

 

Congratulations on the find.

 

First, Fiddlefry resurrected a thread on the Nikon 200mm F/4 Q which motivated me to get mine out of storage and try it on a D750 with surprisingly good results. Now you find an old 80-200 f/2.8 zoom that works well on a D800. Nikon made some nice glass (and still does).

Even though I have a 70-200 f/2.8(VRI), I haven't been able to bring myself to part with my 80-200 f/2.8D, which I think is more or less the same as yours(mine is push-pull without a tripod collar). Part of my motivation is that the condition mine's in wouldn't be worth a lot, but I still like the lens.

 

I've noticed some weird artifacts(and maybe some coma) wide open at closer distances, but other than that I can't really complain about the optical quality. My main motivation for the newer lens was faster focus speeds, something which I only need a few times a year anyway. Aside from that, I actually like push pull zooms(as long as I'm using the lens more or less parallel to the ground) and I REALLY like them when I'm trying to follow action with manual focus-something that I often find better than using AF with these larger screwdriver lenses.

 

In any case, I've never been too concerned about carrying the camera around from a strap on my neck with the 80-200 attached. I DO think that it feels unsteady on a tripod, which generally is an occasion for me to use the 70-200 instead(plus I love the Kirk foot I have on mine).

 

So, to get more to the point, I say don't worry about it.

While it wouldn't hurt to get some kind of lens collar, and indeed IIRC the third version of the 80-200 did have one, I always assumed that the lack of a collar meant that Nikon felt the original 80-200 was okay to cantilever off the mount (at least on the heavier and more robust bodies - don't crack your D800's frame!) I only assume that for gentle use - hang the camera from its strap and whack the lens on something, and I make no promises about the mount.

 

As for the force on the tripod socket, it'll probably survive with a decent QR plate, though I'd be nervous if a battery grip were involved, but there's no doubt that being nearer the centre of gravity reduces the forces. I found sag a problem even with shorter lenses (I tried a 150mm Sigma) and big support (Arca Z1/Gitzo 5) - a store let me try. Gear heads are more precise: they're already taking the weight as you position them, so they don't "bounce".

 

The bigger lenses for which hanging off the camera a bad idea sometimes have warnings and/or their own strap - at least, my 200/2 does.

 

I should say, I have a cheap long lens support that I've used on my 300/4 AF-S, which has an infamously iffy foot; I used it on a star tracker. It seems to work, but wow does it add to the weight of everything, and I'm probably now overloading the tracker instead. You may find something smaller.

 

Generally, use it gently and I'd not lose sleep with the bare set-up.

 

I had a mk1 80-200 with a stuck aperture at one point, followed by the two-ring with the same optics. The mk1 was incredibly slow to focus; the working lens was iffy at short range and especially prone to AF issues at short distance, apparently due to changes in telecentricity. At long range it's a good lens, and lacks the 200mm corner behaviour of the 70-200 vr1. The current FL is in a different league, but it's also one reason I have no money any more, so enjoy what you've got!

I forgot to mention, hand held manual focusing the 80-200 is near bliss. I have also discovered that the rear element of the lens is stationary.

 

(I cannot pump up the tires on the Cannondale with my 80-200.)

I forgot to mention, hand held manual focusing the 80-200 is near bliss. I have also discovered that the rear element of the lens is stationary.

 

(I cannot pump up the tires on the Cannondale with my 80-200.)

I use to have it, it is good lens. I just sold tripod mount for those, you find it online, B& H have it for sure.

I just got old Nikon 28-85mm f/3.5-4.5 in thrift store for $20 with old Nikon F50, it is now most used my lens for last 2 weeks. Perfect match for D750, got HB-1 hood today for $5 :)

Speaking of long lenses and relics - I'm presently in discussion toward picking up a Nikkor 300 f2.8 ED-IF. Big brute, but I tried it out on my D750 and it works a treat. I already have the f4 AF-ED, but wouldn't the f2.8 be just the ticket for the concert shooting season? ;)

Given an choice I always support the camera+lens on the balance point.

If the lens does NOT have the option for a tripod collar, I either do not buy it (Sigma 100-400) or do not use it on a tripod (Nikon 80-200/4 pre-Ai)

 

That is something that BUGS me about the current long zooms in the 200-400 range. In the old days, pre VR, all the long lenses (300mm+) that I used/know of had tripod collars. Today, someone decided that just because the lens has VR, you don't need to use a tripod, so no tripod collar.

Well not having a tripod collar might be fine if you only shoot handheld.

But that is impossible when shooting something like fireworks, where because the exposure is multiple seconds, you HAVE to use a tripod.

Or if you are shooting something where you have to hold the lens in position for a LONG time. Like waiting half an hour to get a shot of a bird landing on it's nest, where you have to have the camera constantly pointed on the nest, as you only have seconds to get the shot.

 

I have an old 75-300 AF lens, that I am not giving up, cuz it is the longest AF lens that I have that has a tripod collar.

And I used it many times for shooting fireworks, ON A TRIPOD.

I thought most modern long zooms had tripod collars? The Sigma 100-400 seems to be an exception, but you can get cheap third-party lenses. The 300mm PF has an optional collar, but it's small enough that I can see why many won't need it.

 

The -300mm zooms tend to be relatively easy to aim, and are deliberately portable, so I can see why the 70-300s and 28-300 are (I think) collarless. They may well be light enough to be usable with the body mount, in a pinch. At least the 70-200 lenses do all have a collar (option, for the f/4) these days. My old 28-200 didn't, despite the lack of VR, although if it were made bigger by one it may not htave got used so much.

 

I'm absolutely on board with using a tripod for long lenses when you're waiting for wildlife to do something, even if you're going to have a fast shutter speed. Zooms tend to balance poorly and be a bit irritating for this, but I've still had my 200-500 on a tripod for extended periods.

 

I can't deny that I've thought of a 300 f/2.8 for recording performances (or more usually in my case, presentations) - when I upgraded my 70-200 VR II, I looked carefully at the 120-300 Sigma against the 70-200 FL, in case. You'll feel it after a bit, though - and I hope the venue is happy with a monopod!

 

I still have my 28-80G, which is featherweight. It's visibly soft (surprise) on high MP bodies, but it's tiny, and that gives it some appeal for (HD) video shooting and on my IR-adapted D90. I gave up on the 28-200 out of optical quality, but I slightly regret it now I've seen DxO recover some images quite effectively.

I suppose the mfg thinks the 70-300 is light enough to not stress the lens mount on the camera, too much. I asked Olympus that exact question about the 75-300, and they told me that the lens is light enough to not over-stress the mount.

The Canon 70-300 is a pretty BIG lens to not have a tripod collar. That is quite a lever sticking out the front of the camera.

And the bigger Sigma 100-400 without an option for a tripod collar :confused:

Another place to shave cost, by eliminating the tripod collar.

 

The super zooms like the 28-300, I kinda understand why they don't have a tripod collar, as they are more of a super GP lens.

 

What is common is when you put a long lens on the front of the camera, it becomes very front heavy.

Then you have to JAM the tripod head TIGHT to keep it from slipping.

I would rather use a long AS rail under the camera so that I can put the camera+lens at the balance point.