Nikon 80-200 f2.8 Lens

[diane_madura]

Hi everyone. An earlier thread prompted me to think a little more about this

lens.

 

Bjorn Rorslett gives the AFS 80-200 mm f/2.8 Nikkor ED-IF, a 4.5, "almost 5.0

rating." Is this referenced lens the equivalent of what B and H is selling

here: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/124669-USA/Nikon_1986_80_200mm_f_2_8_ED_AF_D.html

 

When comparing this 80-200 from B and H, is this lens, image quality wise, the

equivalent of the 70-200 f2.8 VR? Is the higher price for the 70-200 only due

to the extended range of the lens? Or is it really a better lens?

 

Does anyone have an opinion about whether the image quality of the 80-200 from

B and H listed above and the image quality of the Nikon 17-55 f2.8 are

equivalent? I ask this because I'm familiar with the 17-55 f2.8.

 

I know the 70-200 f2.8 is a great lens, but has some drawbacks when using full

frame. Does the above camera from B and H also have the same issues as the 70-

200 when using on a full frame camera?

 

Thank you in advance for your opinions.

[diane_madura]

P.S. I have a D80.

[szrimaging]

First off, your link didn't work.

 

Secondly, it looks like the link was to a 1986 AF-D. So no, they are not the same lens. The major difference is the AF-S on the one you refer to the review of, where as the one in your link is a AF-D. Big differnce in focusing speeds.

 

Most likely, the AF-D also isn't IF (at least mine isn't, one of the push pull types).

 

As for full frame, these lenses should not have that issue as they were built for film, and didn't exhibit it (to my knowledge) on film.

 

B&H has a copy of the AF-S version for a little over 1g on their site.

 

Another place to go and check is KEH.com. They are probably the best resource for finding used gear.

 

As for why the 70-200 costs more, one word (actually two) VR. That, and marketing. If you need VR, not really much of a choice, you need to go with it. If you don't, then the 80-200 is a great alternative.

 

Also, I am having excellent results (better than my 80-200, I think) with the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 HSM II. No VR/OS, but that is fine with me.

[buri]

Diane,

 

I asked a similar question in a previous thread about optical quality and focusing speed. It seems that everyone answered saying that all of the 80-200mm lenses have about the same optical quality. As for focusing speed, they said that newer lenses focus faster (which I expected). Ken Rockwell claims that the version that you linked to is almost as fast (about 80% as fast) as the AF-S version).

 

As for why the 70-200mm is more expensive...that I can answer. The 70-200mm has VR (vibration reduction) and is an AF-S lens. The lens that you linked to is AF-D. AF-D lenses (for the most part) do not focus as fast as an AF-S lens and are not a quiet. If you have any more questions, feel free to send an e-mail my way. I am not an expert, but I have been studying these lenses for a while. I have not shot with any of them...so take my advice with a grain of salt.

 

Best Regards,

Ryan

[joel_blacher]

Not everyone...in my experience the 80-200AFS is sharper then the other versions (especially from f2.8-f4), is much better with tc's (you can use the tcXXe's), and flares less than the 70-200VR. I've had all three versions of 80-200, the 70-200VR and the Sigma HSM version (also very good). My choice among the lot is the 80-200AFS. So...there's that.

[ShunCheung]

The following old thread from year 2000 has a lot of the 80-200mm/f2.8 AF details:

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

 

The version sold for $915 new at B&H is the last AF-D version with tripod collar, but it is not AF-S. All non-AF-S (i.e. AF or AF-D) versions of this lens are optically identical. I am not sure why people see huge differences among them.

 

I have own three different versions of this lens. Last year I finally sold my AF-S and the only one I current own is the 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR. For indoor, hand held work, having VR is a huge advantage and IMO that trumps everything else.

 

The corner areas of the 70-200 VR is weak on the D3, but I compared that and the 80-200mm/f2.8 AF-S on 35mm film and they looked fine at the corners.

 

If you can afford the VR version, I wouldn't hestitate to get it, especially if you are using a DX body such as the D80. If Nikon upgrads it to a better version, which could be anything between tomorrow or 5 years from now, I might upgrade, but to me, it is a waste of time to speculate on future products. Buy what works for you now and worry about the future when the time comes.

[pete_lucas]

I use the AF-D 80-200mm 2.8... I actually considered the AFS version because of the quicker focus, then I realized how heavy it is, and the AF-D is no lightweight. I opted for the AF-D and it's been the best investment in glass I've ever made.