80-200mm f/2.8D ED AF Zoom Nikkor and D200

[b_va]

I've read many reviews of this lens and it seems to be a good one.What has been

your experiance with this lens mounted on the D200 as it relates to AF speed,

sharpness and battery drain? I'm currently debating whether to buy the 80-200

or the newer 18-200. I expect to use the lens for soccer and other fast paced

situations. Thanks for your help.

[ShunCheung]

Could you specify exactly which 80-200mm/f2.8 AF you have in mind?

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000nBZ

[ilkka_nissila]

The 70-200/2.8 is the replacement for the 80-200. The 18-200 is not suitable for sports. In any case either of the f/2.8 would do the job but the 70-200 would be better because it has AF-S. But it's also heavier and more expensive.

[bwcombs]

I have the 80-200mm two ring with tripod mount and recommend it for soccer and other

sports. On my D70 it works well. But on my D200 it functions even faster.

 

In terms of sharpness, speed, etc., it outperforms the 18-200mm. (And yes, I have used

both lenses on the D200)

 

So far, I am a bit disappointed at the battery life of the D200. But I also understand that this

camera requires more power for more tasks. So, an extra battery or two, or the MB-200 is a

fix for that.

[b_va]

That would be the AF D two touch version

[ky2]

<i>"The 70-200/2.8 is the replacement for the 80-200"</i><br><br>Ilkka, you know that's entirely wrong... no G lens can replace a D lens! ;)

[ilkka_nissila]

Yaron, I doubt Nikon will introduce new D lenses any more. They'll gradually stop making the ones that exist. They don't want you to use your manual focus cameras because they need you to spend money on an F6 or a digital.

 

Personally I was disappointed to see the 70-200, 200/2, and the 105 as "G" type lenses. I think it's a really bad move from Nikon. But Nikon has made so many other bad moves such as not introducing a FF DSLR, no DX wide angle primes (apart from a fish eye), 15 years late in introducing AF-S into new primes (finally!) ... what can you expect from them? I have no expectations really. Grab your "D" lenses while you can.

[richard_liu2]

While the 80-200 AFD is better than the 18-200 optically, its AF is way too slow for soccer. I was assistant coach and shooter for my 6 year old boy's soccer team for the last season(ended about 3 weeks ago) when I ordered the 18-200mm VR. The max 200mm is good for soccer under 9 year old, too short for any ages above. You might get away with a max 300mm for under 10 year old. The prefered FL is 100-400mm or 200-500mm and you need fast AF. I didn't have a chance to try out the 18-200mm cuz it was too late when I got it. For under 8, I was gonna try to crank up the ISO and shoot at f5.6 or f8 because of the game. The players can move out of focus quickly if you shoot at larger aperture and with a slow AF. It's a very demanding sport. Ther prefered setup will need a good body(D200), fast AF(IF) and in the range of 100-400(or 500)mm. A fast lens(F2.8) is prefered in artificail light(or indoor), but may not help much. For Nikon,that will probably lead you to the 70-200mm($1500) for lil kids and 200-400mm($5000) for any ages above. :-(

[ky2]

Ilkka, I agree to that. The D is for death... and G is for...

[john schroeder]

I have the 80-200 f2.8 "one touch" version and it is amazing. I get fantastic results on my D70. Auto focus might be a bit slow for sports but good technique would offset this short comming. The 18-200 does not allow for a large enough aperture for sports.

[anthony_bez]

The 80-200 f2.8 Two Touch is pretty fast for a screw focus lens. I did not find it noticeably slower than the AFS version. I can not imagine trading mine for the consumer 18-200. I would buy the 80-200 for soccer, and the 18-70 if you need the range.

[todd peach seattle, washi]

Richard, I'm curious what body you shot soccer on that you thought the 80-200/2.8 AFD was too slow. I've shot maybe 1,000-1500 captures of youth soccer with that lens on a D100 and D70, and I thought they drove the lens pretty well. The D2H was a little snappier, but I didn't feel like the two lesser bodies got behind the action at all.

[mats_hellman]

I had this combo. Exactly this lens you are looking at.

 

In my case (and others as I read) this lens showed Cromatic abbaration (If I spel that correctly) and/or Purple Fringing. Only with my d200 though. I had no problems with my d70 or with film. Probalbly has to do with crowding 10.2 mp into a small space (?).

 

Anyway it was pretty bad. As I'd rather not zoom and this lens is really heavy, I sold and bought the 105 vr instead.

 

just wanted to let you know of the CA.

[richard_lewis3]

CA or chromatic aberration is possible in any lens, due to mis-alignment, manufacturing defects, etc., although certain lens designs are more prone to it. Just because one lens exhibits it doesn't mean it's prevalent in all lenses of that kind. I've returned even high end Nikon telephotos with CA and found their replacements clean. However, in my ongoing concern with Nikon's quality control, which has deteriorated substantially recently, particularly with regard to lenses, I strongly recommend thorough testing immediately upon receipt, to allow for return within the retailers policy period.