The most affordable 200mm f/2.8 lens ?

Hi everyone, I need some suggestions/advises from you.

 

I've been doing some street photography recently, and I found the FL of 200mm (on DX) to be most useful due to its

perspective and the fact that I don't need to confront my subjects at point blank range (thus ruining the "natural" look). As of

now, the only "200mm lens" I have is the 55-200 VR. I found the lens to be too slow to allow a fast enough shutter speed to

freeze the subject's motion under most conditons. So now I need to invest in a f/2.8 (at least) 200mm lens, or a zoom that

covers 200mm at f/2.8.

 

The best choice for me is obviously the 70-200 f/2.8 VR (assume we exclude the exotic 200 f/2 VR that I'll never get), but it's

over my budget. Even the 80-200 f/2.8 is almost too expensive for me; while the 180 f/2.8 is almost just as expensive as the

80-200, which really doesn't make it a better alternative.

 

Is biting the bullet on the 80-200 f/2.8 AF-D the best idea or there are more cost efficient alternative out there?

 

Thanks

hmm, You could look at a manual focus 180 2.8.

I'd probably recommend an old push pull style 80-200 though. I got mine that is slightly defective in that you have to stop down to 5.6 to get f4, but it only cost $300. I think you can get these old style ones in excellent condition for around $500 ish.

180mm f/2.8 Nikkor

>> "180mm f/2.8 Nikkor'

 

That lens brand new cost $700+... How can I get that lens at a cheaper price? or better yet, how can I get a version of the 80-200 at a cheaper price?

hmmm... check e-bay. but let the buyer beware. you might also want to look at a Sigma or Tamron.

 

Dave

"That lens brand new cost $700+"

 

So? Don't buy a new one. Try KEH.com

I just picked up a $275 beater.

 

It has a few light scratches on the front element and is the first AF version with the smooth barrel.

 

Doesn't hurt the magnificent image quality one bit.:)

I just sold a second backup 180mm f/2.8 AF for $575 in mint condition. There are suckers like me out there<G>. It is a remarkable prime lens that easily out performs the 80-200mm. I'm edging my way for popping for the 70-200mm though.

180/2.8 lens "It is a remarkable prime lens that easily out performs the 80-200"... and as easily out performs the Nikkor 70-200/2.8 VR.

"Don't buy a new one. Try KEH.com." -- Ellis

 

Bingo.

Street with a telephoto zoom? Sounds like surveillance to me...

 

FWIW, I picked my push-pull AF 80-200 for $325 on eBay. You can too, but it takes a little time.

180mm f/2.8 Nikkor

 

Built like a tank. On ebay regularly $250 - $350. KEH and B&H as well. Mine was "purchased and used once by a

pro to photograph an NBA player." It arrived showroom fresh. I love it. I paid $250 on ebay. I really like the price too.

 

Tack sharp, easy to handle, built well, can't go wrong.

 

Best of luck in your descision, D

Another vote for the 180/2.8 Nikkor. It was the third lens I got when I switched to Nikon several years ago. A best buy in a fast medium telephoto. It's one of those lenses that's good enough that, if you happen to need that particular focal length and speed, it's worth buying a body to go with the lens just to have access to it.

Is it worth spending a little more for the 'ED' version of the Nikkor 180mm f2.8? I would imagine that the answer is yes, but the older one can't be that much worse, right?

Both are great optics for film but for digital cameras, chromatic aberration is more noticable so I'd go for the ED version.

Mine is the older pre-ED version, and I never saw any problems with CA on film even in bright sunlight. But I haven't tested it extensively on my D2H. I'll try to remember to do that soon.

Yes to the 80-200mm/2.8. Having shot with all three mentioned lenses. The IQ is great and you can find a good deal at KEH and other reputable used sources if your budget is slim. I did own for a long time the 180mm but sold it due to the fact that after post, there was no diff between the 80-200mm/2.8 in all respects. But, I love post.

 

Most likely that is they the 80-200mm is still in the Nikon lineup. It's a great lens and a tank.

 

I do have the the 55-200mm VRII and use it for snapshots on a D40x.

 

Good hunting.

The 180/2.8 is great.

I recently picked up a mint 180 2.8 ED model. Fantastic!

 

But I also have the Canon FD 200 2.8 IF for my manual Canons, and it's every bit as good. I still shoot with film most often.

 

There might be adapters for the FD lenses on other cameras. They can be picked up very reasonably. I got that mint 200 2.8 for about $135 on the Bay.

 

The Nikon 180 2.8 is as good as its reputation. I got it for $250 right here on photo.net.

A slightly different tack on the problem. Since you're a distance from your subject, you could try to learn to pan your shots to keep your subject in focus instead of plunking down cash for another lens. Just a thought

Or you could consider getting a Nikon D700 (or a D3) body. The higher ISO speeds (like 6400) will make your 55-200 lens work a bit better. Or you may be able to find a earlier non-D version of the *already mentioned* AF 180mm f2.8 Nikkor lens.

The problem with KEH.com is that they only sell the 80-200 about $100 cheaper than brand new, not to mention the lens is only in "good" condition.

 

>> "Or you could consider getting a Nikon D700 (or a D3) body. The higher ISO speeds (like 6400) will make your 55-200 lens work a bit better."

 

A few weeks ago, I actually thought about doing that. But it's probably not worth it in my case.

 

Bytheway, the 55-200 is a DX glass and it seems to only "work" on FX from 135mm to 200mm.

 

I'm actually utilizing the DX advantage of "the reach" in my case. With FX, I will need a 300mm lens to regain the same field of vision.

I have the Sigma 70-200, which has a great built in motor. It focuses really fast, and accurately. I had the 55-200, and loved it as a walk around zoom, but having 2.8 makes everything so much nicer. I'm sure the IQ isn't as good as the Nikon, but for half the price... I don't know how it compares to the 80-200, I have also heard good things about that lens, and if you want to stick to Nikon lenses, it might be your best bet.

I suggest casting about for a Vivitar Series 1 200/3.....

"I'm actually utilizing the DX advantage of "the reach" in my case. With FX, I will need a 300mm lens to regain the same field of vision."

 

 

If case you did not know, the D3 (and the D700) have three modes:

 

 

 

FX

 

 

DX

 

 

5:4

 

 

 

So if you wish to use a DX lens on one of the newer FX bodies, you may get a smaller file, but the DX crop is yours to use.