Nikon Zoom Telephoto 80-200 f/2.8 ED AF-D vs.... (help please)

[dabitz]

Hi friends. Long time no write. Well, I am in a very tight budget,

but I am looking to improve my photography skill. In this case, I am

looking to do candid photography and need the best zoom telephoto I

can afford. Max 850. I have been doing google, etc., but have not

found the answer I am looking for. Note that I shoot with a D-70.

 

My two candidates in my my extremely tight budget are:<br><br>

a. Nikon Zoom Telephoto 80-200 f/2.8 ED AF-D about 820.00 after

rebate<br>

b. Nikon Zoom Telephoto AF Zoom Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6D ED about

260.00 after rebate<br><br>

 

I like the fact that 200-300mm extra range, although I have read that

image can be soft within those parameters. Note that I got rid of a

Sigma 70-300mm APO, because image was extremely soft at 300mm, my

purpose here to improve my skills. Yet, a bit concerned that 80mm

minimum range is a bit tight, specially on digital SLR.<br><br>

Can you help me make up my mind and understand why the 80-200mm would

be a better option, besides being able to shoot in lower light

conditions? How good is that lens at 2.8f/200mm? Can I do full body

portraits with an SB-800? Do I get better quality shooting with a

shorter lens and closer to the subject, or staying further away from

the subject and using this lens will give me better quality details,

etc?<br><br>

As always, thank you guys. I have become addicted to this site and I

am looking forward to improving my skills.<br><br>

Goodspeed!<br><br>

Dave

[james_purdy]

You do realize that the 80-200 2.8 is a real bazooka. The lens is very sharp, even when wide open but hand holding at 200mm really means that you should be using a shutter speed of 1/300 minimum with a D70. You may be a lot steadier than I am but that could be an issue. The SB-800 does have enough power to do what you want but that certainly destroys the candid part.

 

Jim

[bwcombs]

I don't know about the 70-300mm.

 

But I do have the 80-200mm f/2.8 (two ring version), and must

say that it will always be in my toolbag. For a long zoom lens, the

images are incredibly sharp, and the AF is quick (as quick as

possible on a D70). And shots at f/2.8 are pretty darn good.

 

I got mine used at a pretty reputable source on ebay. Paid

around $650 for it last year.

 

I use it a lot in pleasure and business. Portraits and everything

else. A couple of image samples below. One, a test shot with

the SB800 and an umbrella setup. And the other an outdoor shot

at 200mm, f2.8 or f3.

 

It is a heavy lens, but the images are worth it in my opinion.<div></div>

[bwcombs]

80-200mm shot<div></div>

[dabitz]

I am drooling over these shots. Very good quality. As for the SB800 and candids, I meant two different applications. I don't understand why the version on b&H says "AF-D" Are there different versions of it?

[ShunCheung]

It is time to reference this old thread again:

 

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

 

There are four different versions of the 80-200mm/f2.8 AF. What you have in mind is the 3rd edition with a tripod collor but not an AF-S. You might want to consider getting one used if your budget is tight. That is the only version still in production. The AF-S is now available as the 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR G lens.

[todd peach seattle, washi]

The 2.8 AF-D is a solid lens / tool for that price. Beyond the 'lower light conditions', the 2.8 aperture is truly usable, and gives a nice 'isolation' (i.e. narrow DOF) throughout the range. The slower zoom will give isolation, but mostly beyond 200mm where it gets soft wide open. I own both. The 80-200 for me is for 'serious shooting' where I'm willing to carry the bazooka. The 70-300 is a travel lens I use for happy snaps.

[alan_wilder1]

I've owned both and found the 70-300 to be a bit soft. Keep in mind that in order for Nikon to competetively price the 70-300, they subcontracted it manufacture(and design ?) to Tamaron, so I expect it to perform as well as the Sigma to your eyes. The previous 75-300 f/4.5-5.6 had a better reputation opticallly but not as stellar as the 80-200 f/2.8.

[ShunCheung]

<I>Keep in mind that in order for Nikon to competetively price the 70-300, they subcontracted it manufacture(and design ?) to Tamaron</I>

<P>

I have seen that claim a number of times. Is there any reference to back that up or it is merely some kind of myth or rumor?

[dabitz]

Thanks for all the answers. It does sound like the 300mm won't make much of a difference over the Sigma. I sold on it on the 80-200mm.

[maurik]

I don't own the 80-200, but did just do a little test with the 70-300mm ED. The 70-300 is really quite a reasonable lens. On a D70, you only have 6 Mpixels, which comes down to 125 pixels/mm. My tests indicates the 70-300 can resolve individual pixels on the CCD (in a high contrast bright situation, sturdy tripod etc.)<br>

If you are trying to improve your skills, I think I would get the 70-300mm ED, and spend some of the rest of the money on a really sturdy (read heavy) tripod with a decent head. By the time you can take photos where the resolution of the lens is truely the limiting factor your skills are very good!<br>

Then sell the photos you took, use that money for a D2X and a 70-200 VR....

[dabitz]

Oops! Too late, I already ordered from B&H.

[abbilder]

Hi!

 

If you can afford it anyway,get the 80-200. One important aspect, if you use it with the D70: You get a uchbetter view through your viewfinder, which is bad enough at the D70.

 

70-300 sounds well especially as digital 105-450. But would you shoot serious photos beyound 200mm without a tripod. Using higher ISO-Nr. doesnt fit it because the picture quality suffers. So, I can not see any sense of the 70-300.

 

If you are at a realy low budget, you can try to get a used 80-200 via eBay or an older 70-210 4-5.6 at ebay or at the grey market. They are smaller than the 70-300sand are said to have better quality.

 

Best wishes,

Axel

[dabitz]

Just got it yesterday. I didn't expect it to feel this heavy on my D-70. But I am very happy with it, absolutely a keeper. Where the heck is the lens hood? That was dissapointing.

 

When you want to shoot macro, do you switch the lens switch to "limited" focusing? How do I take macro shots with my D70? I can't use the cam macro program because it will popup the flash and that would ruin the photo (lens shadow).<br><br><center>

<img width=550 src="http://www.santanastown.com/stream/slide.jpg"><br><br>

<img width=550 src="http://www.santanastown.com/stream/static.jpg"></center>

[bwcombs]

Wow, David, you don't waste any time.

 

Those shots with your new 80-200mm look great.

 

The second one, shot at f/2.8, wide open. That pretty much

answers your question, eh?

 

Good luck. And have fun.

[dabitz]

Couldn't wait to try it. I love it. I took my daughter to the park to test it.

[ronnie_law]

I just received my Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 AF Macro ED Zoom Lens and will use it with my D70 at a hockey game. I wish I was able to see the images of David Rivera. Any suggests on how I should set the lens for the hockey game? Aperture and shutter speed? Would appreciate it.