Why would Nikon ever have callerd the 80-200mm f2.8 ED AF a Macro Zoom?

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by liljuddakalilknyttphotography, Feb 3, 2009.

  1. OK I have yet again done a bad deal.... My fault as usual, but I want to know...
    I like zooms - everyone know this.
    So I happened to locate a 80-200mm f2.8 ED AF Macro Zoom on eBay.
    Well - closest focus is 3m or 10ft.... It doesn't make for much of a Macro.
    My fault - but why would they call it a Macro Zoom. I even have the box for it & yes - it's labled Macro Zoom.
    I should have known something was off when I saw Bjorn Rorslett put it amongst the regular zooms...
    Any thoughts on Nikon's logic in this?
    Lil :)
  2. Is it the right box? Check serials.
    Is there not a close up or macro button? Maybe it will go to 3 feet or i meter in a special mode.
    My 35/70 has a macro mode useable at 35mm only. How stupid is that? My 35 70 Leica works at 70 mm.
  3. Nikon has a 80-200 mm 4,5-5,6 D Macro. The 80-200/2.8 is NOT a macro lens.
  4. Which exact version do you have? There's push-pull non-D, push-pull D, two-touch D and AF-S.
    As far as I can tell from reference materials I have, all the AF 80-200 f/2.8 lenses focus to about 5 feet in the orange "macro" range of the focus ring. Even the 80-200 f/4.5-5.6D that Ron mentions focuses to ~5 feet.
  5. It sounds like you have the version with the "close range" feature which allows the near distance to change from 1.8 meters to 1.5 meters.
  6. Well - closest focus is 3m or 10ft.... It doesn't make for much of a Macro.​
    Somethings not right here. All versions of the AF 80~200/2.8 focus to 1.5m (1.8m in the normal range, to 1.5m in the "extended" orange macro range).
    There is a LIMIT/FULL switch on both the current "two ring" version and the push/pull D version that will limit focus to the infinity-3m range if it is set to the LIMIT position.
    But you are right, it's not much of a "macro". Even at 1.5m it's approximately 1:6.
  7. I have a push-pull non-D. It has an orange colored Macro area on the lens...
    Serial # 362733
    Box clearly says
    80-200mm f2.8ED
    Macro Zoom and then a huge AF
    Please help - maybe I'm missing something.
    Lil :)
  8. Michael,
    It does have a second ring with four different settings...
    3m 10ft - M, Full, Infinity- 3m 10ft, and Infinity - 5m 15ft
    Lil :)
  9. Is the knurled ring near the front of the lens set to FULL? If not, set it to FULL and you'll get the full range from infinity to 1.5m.

  10. OK - I must have misunderstood the manual. I thought I was supposed to put it at
    3m 10ft - M
    OK - just tested it against the 70-200VR. It is an increase in magnification for sure. But the 70-200VR is a lot sharper. Granted this was hand held.
    Michael - do you own this lens? If you do. How do you find the sharpness?
    Lil :)
  11. Hi Lil.... My 80-200 f/2.8 had the close focus feature and it says on the box Macro Zoom Lens too. I sold the lens to a friend but I still have the box in my office. It is the same as the 35-70 f/2.8.
  12. OK Rene'
    how do I get it to do a Macro? Just tested it against the 70-200VR on a tripod. The settings Michael gave me gives me a smaller version than that of the 70-200VR.
    OK set it back to
    3m 10ft - M
    and then I get the magnification.
    Why did you sell it. Because it wasn't what you wanted or?
    Lil :)
  13. I own the current two ring AF-D version. I haven't really used it enough to make critical judgments about sharpness, but it is known to be a bit soft at 200mm and f/2.8.
    3m 10ft - M restricts you to the 3m and below range only. FULL should give you the entire range from infinity to "macro". I used to own the AF 300/4, which has a similar focus range limit ring. As I recall, it was a little confusing at first on how to set the ring for various limit ranges.
    Unless you want to use it below 3m, for normal use it's probably best to set the ring to either Infinity- 3m 10ft or Infinity - 5m 15ft to improve autofocus response time. Later versions have improved autofocus performance.
    FWIW, the box (and official nomenclature) of the current AF 80~200/2.8D make no mention of "MACRO", although it does have the same close focus capability (extended orange zone) as earlier versions (1:5.9).
  14. Lil.... Uhmmm! I forgot how it worked BUT as I recall you DON't get any magnification. To me it used to look the same BUT it lets you focus within closer distance. That is all. Again, it is the same as the 35-70 f/2.8. I don't see any magnification either. Same as you I wonder why they call it macro. Long ago I asked about it here in P/N. let me see if I can find the thread!
  15. Here is the thread:
    I said in the thread 70-200 but that is a mistake, the one I had is the 80-200 (two touch)
  16. Well, compared to the 70-200VR the 70-200VR wins. Compared to the 180mm f/2.8 + Kenko 1.4x - the 180mm wins.
    Bad decision yet again...
    So - I have my Kiron 105mm MF back. Now, I want more reach for those pesky little bugs who simply will not stick around.....
    Lil :)
  17. Have you thought about the 200 f/4 Micro?
  18. I know Rene'.......
    I may well have to take a loss on this one just in order to get the 200 f/4 Micro....
    I better check what Bjorn has to say about that one...
    Thanks - I presume you sold yours due to the fact that it wasn't sharp enough for you....
    Lil :)
  19. Nikon's nomenclature is confusing - macro doesn't mean macro and micro means macro - sometimes. My 70-180/4.5-5.6 is called a Micro Nikkor - considering that the closest focus distance is about 1 ft (or 5" from the front element) - that even is a bit of a misnomer - it barely qualifies as macro (1:1) these days - its limit is about 1:1.33 at 180mm. But it is for certain more macro than any of the 70/80 - 200 lenses.
  20. No really! I bought it coz my son was playing basketball but after he finished Jr. H/S he didn't play anymore and i didn't use it anymore. I already had my 180 f/2.8 for tele and I like it better. then my friend wanted my 80-200 and he paid what i bought it for. So I let it go. To be honest, I never thought of it as a great lens. It was ok but it was to big, too heavy, AF too slow and the 80-200 is not my range. I rather use primes 105 and 180.
  21. Lil, I wonder if the Micro-Nikkor 70-180mm f/4.5-5.6D ED might be more what you're looking for:
    Just picked one up myself for the second time. Plenty sharp.
    Add a T6 close-up filter for 1:1 at 180mm.
  22. Thanks Dieter.....
    Yes, that does sound better....
    It is heavy - built like a tank. Should have a collar for sure... AF is slow.
    yes sounds more convenient.... Where did you get yours?
    Lil :)
  23. The 70-180 wasn't a big seller when it was available new - now the price used exceeds what the new price once was. The lens is plenty sharp indeed - the problem with a lot of macro shots is that the working distance is fairly small for any given focal length (at 180mm it is about 1/2 what a normal 180 macro would give you) - one reason why I recently purchased the Sigma 150/2.8 Macro lens. I have the 5T and 6T - they both work very well with the 70-180 - and are equally hard to find now. Don't expect fast AF from that lens though. As to the 200/4 M(i)acro - always wanted the lens, and when I saw one in the store, I tried it - AF is painfully slow - you can make and drink an espresso in the time that lens takes to move from infinity to the closest focus distance - about the same speed as the 70-180 though - and a bit easier to manual focus. Pretty steep pricing too.
    Too emphasize the point - the 70-180 will NOT give you greater working distance than the Kiron 105 you already have. The 150 Sigma does - and I didn't want to spend the extra cash on getting the Sigma 180.
  24. Lil Judd, I don't think you did wrong. It just happens that if you wanted a macro, you didn't get it. I have the exact same lens, an 80-200 AF push-pull, first version, and I'm happy with it. I have used it in a number of ventures (especially concerts, when I managed to get really close to the performers) and thanks to the wide aperture I managed to get fairly nice photographs. Sure, it won't do for butterflies... but then, do you need that? I've checked your Zenfolio and you will be able to put this lens to a good use.
    Keep up the good work!
  25. Lil, I'm in London and managed to get one from a shop that was liquidising a collection of unused Nikon lenses that some guy had collected over many years. Got lucky, basically. They do come up on the 'Bay sometimes, though and I'd imagine B&H or Adarama may well have a used one.
  26. Hi Francisco,
    Problem is - I have the 70-200VR & this one does not have a lens collar. I should call Kirk & see if the one they have will work on this lens - - well if I keep it.
    Thank you I will try....
    Hi Duncan,
    I've located one seriously overpriced on eBay. But I can call around a little I guess... I checked B&H - no luck... Adorama - no luck....
    Lil :)
  27. "I want more reach" Lil, Have you ever tried a teleconverter on your 105mm for macro work?
  28. The collar for the push-pull AF 80-200/2.8 is quite considerable in size. If you want a tripod collar for this lens I would highly recommend you to get one of the later versions which have a Nikon made one.
    In the 80s and early 90s it was popular to designate zooms that focused reasonably close "macro" zooms although the quality was often poor in the "macro" range. Lately Nikon hasn't used this designation nor a separate macro range. There is a 70-180mm f/4.5-5.6 Micro Nikkor which is the only zoom lens that I know about that is really optimized for close-ups.
  29. I agree with Ilkka. There was a time not so long ago in which manufacturers used to add the word "macro" to almost any zoom lens, to make it more appealing. But 90% of those lenses are useless for basic macro work.
  30. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    "There was a time not so long ago in which manufacturers used to add the word "macro" to almost any zoom lens, to make it more appealing."​
    I am quite sure that was exactly what happened. I bought that lens new back in 1989. It is hard to believe that it has been 20 years. I sold it several years ago but somehow could not locate the box for the buyer. Therefore, I still have the box. It indeed says macro zoom on the box, but that is pretty meaningless.
  31. Elliot,
    a TC on the Kiron....... Huummmm - No, that thought have not occurred to me. I have used a tube a few times.... I know people do it to the 105VR - - but the Kiron....
    Thanks for input Ilkka,
    this one will go back on eBay. It's just not for me.
    Thanks Luca,
    there is a certain amount of size increase - but not enough to make it worth it.
    Thanks Shun,
    I will continue my search in spending money on Nikon equipment & just know I'll lose money on this one...
    Thanks for the help guys
    Lil :)
  32. Lil, if you are using the lens to take shots of insects you might want to consider the 300 F4 with an extension tube. This one of my favorite insect lenses because I can get great working distance with it. I have the 200 AF Micro but use the 300 with a PN11 extension tube for macro when I need the extra working distance.
  33. Thanks Bill,
    I have used the 300mm AF-S f/4 just as you suggest. Also with a TC & that works great as well.
    Thanks for the suggestion.
    Lil :)
  34. Lil, they're expensive now. I paid $1400 for mine which for mint was pretty ok. Seen they as high as $1800 on the 'Bay. That said, I used mine today and it's an outstanding lens.
  35. The Macro designation is not that the lens will close focus. It is that when used with extension tubes or close-up screw-on lenses, you maintain decent working distance. Instead on having your subject just .5 inches from the lens, you are at a more reasonable 6-8 inches away. This way you have lots of room to work around.

Share This Page