Used Nikon AF 80-200 2.8D - Soft copy or just to be expected?

[sandra_grunzinger]

<p>I purchased this lens from B&H used. This is the longest lens I have ever owned, so I'm not sure if I'm expecting too much from it or if it's actually soft. So to the forums I go! Can anyone take a look at this and tell me if I should send it back or live with it?<br>

<img src="http://i.imgur.com/cqsGKZk.jpg" alt="" width="534" height="800" /><br>

Shot at f/5.0, 1/250 second. Focus was on the closer eye.<br>

<img src="http://i.imgur.com/xeZqopa.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="548" /><br>

It is obviously exhibiting back focusing, which I'm attempting to remedy with AF Fine Tune on my D600. (Any tips on that would be appreciated as well.</p>

[sandra_grunzinger]

<p>Here's an example at f/2.8, which is where I'm really puzzled.<br>

<img src="http://i.imgur.com/gUYccct.jpg" alt="" width="534" height="800" /><br>

<img src="http://i.imgur.com/WNHyYkd.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="534" /></p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Since you have a D600, I would suggest setting it up on a tripod, or if your 80-200mm AF-D is the version with a tripod collar, mount the lens on a tripod with the camera attached to the lens. Find a static subject and use live view to adjust manual focus to evaluate sharpness, possibly with 1-second shutter delay (Custom Setting D). I wouldn't use an animal or person as the subject in that case. If that is sharp, fine tune your AF to match that kind of sharpness.</p>

<p>Check out this recent discussion: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00boQk</p>

[sandra_grunzinger]

<p>I have used the tripod and tape measure setup as well with identical results in softness. What I am wondering is if this softness wide open is normal for a tele zoom like this, since I have no reference for what "sharp" is on a tele zoom.</p>

[rconey]

<p>It's getting dark so I can't go shoot anything but this seems a little soft. However, f2.8 at 200 mm at close range gives a very narrow depth of field. I second the tripod and static subject testing. A moving animal is going to be difficult with f2.8.</p>

[sandra_grunzinger]

<p>Ok, here's my tape measure test. Like I said, same results.... Also, believe it or not, the focus was on the 7, not the 8... And there was no visible difference at any setting of AF Fine tune in the testing.<br /> <img src="http://i.imgur.com/bjiyRjx.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="534" /><br /> Shot at f/4.5<br /> <img src="http://i.imgur.com/Iv8GdeL.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="534" /><br /> 1:1 crop</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>If you shoot f/2.8 in addition to using the long end (200mm) of the lens, you are going to get a very shallow depth of field. If in addition you shot it at ISO 100 and you also shot hand-held, these are actually pretty good, given the lighting. The flat light is also going to exacerbate the feeling of softness.</p>

<p>As Shun said, however, you really can't easily evaluate the capabilities of the lens unless you use a tripod. You probably will need to shoot it in bright light so that the shutter will be very fast. If that still does not work, use a shutter delay (a delayed release).</p>

<p>I rather doubt that in this case the problem is with the lens.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I think you are better off finding some fixed subject outdoors, perhaps 10 to 20 feet away as your target. E.g. like what I did with this boring sign a few days ago on July 6:</p>

<ul>

<li>This thread: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00bnh5, July 6, 6:32pm post</li>

<li>And this test image, at 100% crop: http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00b/00bo3T-541209684.jpg</li>

</ul>

<p>Unless you are testing a macro lens, most regular lenses such as the 80-200 will not do very well with those newspaper or ruler tests, since they are not exactly design to focus so closely. They will look very soft compared to real macro lenses.</p>

[RaymondC]

<p>Have a go with AF fine tune. </p>

<p>I had this lens with a older dSLR, I think if I was within 8m everything was soft, stopping down did help but not really. I had a reference of a consumer 80-200 f/4.5-5.6 and that was sharper. If the subject was more than 8m away it was ok at all apertures. </p>

<p>I did sent it away to Nikon for inspection, came back fine, maybe it was within tolerance, not sure. I was told by a spokespeson from Nikon at another event that maybe the camera was within tolerance as well .. the two combined not realy good.</p>

[paul_k1664875007]

<p>I have had a 2.8/80-200 AF D (2nd generation push pull) zoom as a workhorse lens for almost twenty years on bodies like F90/F100 up to D2X and D3.</p>

<p>In my experience the images you show are 'normal' for shooting with 2.8 at 200mm. Extremely shallow DoF (actually quite beautiful IMHO) which makes it very important to focus really accurately and yes, on a 24MP camera mercilessly exposed as a soft lens fully open. in my experience IQ should much improve when stopped down.</p>

<p>But I must admit that it was the (so far only) lens I traded in for a more modern one (2.8/70-200 VRII) after I got a D800. Still IMHO a very beautiful lens I definitely would have kept if I had continued shooting with a lower MP camera.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>There is another thing to consider; I have this lens and like quite some others, I found it's simply not sharp at close focus distances at 200mm. This seems to be fairly common with these lenses; I know mine has this problem (given my uses for the lens, it's a minor issue for me). At shorter focal lengths, or longer focus distances, no problem and a solid performer.<br>

Shallow DoF obviously does not help, but I've seen it also with f/5.6-f/8, where sharpness nor DoF should be massive issues. It's really due to the short focus distance.<br>

AF Fine Tune is only going to help if the lens consistently exhibits the problem throughout the range, and at every focus distance. If the problem is like mine, only below ~5-7 metres distance, correcting it becomes tricky, as you would make the AF accuracy less for the longer distances.</p>

[frank_skomial]

<p>The 1/250 sec could be OK, or not.<br>

Try faster shutter speed, if not on a tripod.<br>

E.g. 1/500, or 1/1000 sec and see improvement in the picture being less soft.<br>

Then you need to develop technique that is appropriate for the long end 200 mm and the 24 MP camera.</p>

<p> </p>

[Andrew Garrard]

I had an 80-200 AF-D and, like Wouter, found that it's not sharp at 200mm and short range. I also found

the AF fine tune at short range was beyond what my D800 could support. At long range, it's appreciably

better. The AF-S may be better (I recently tried what was probably an unwell copy and replaced my AF-D

with a 70-200 instead). Unless others have very different experiences, I believe this lens just isn't terribly

well corrected at closer distances. This isn't mentioned in as many reviews as it probably should be.

[keith_burdett]

<p>Another +1 to poor AF at 200mm close focus (2 ring AFD version on D800). I don't find my copy soft however, just inaccurate. I've got -16 dialled into AF Fine Tune which works great for med - long distance at all focal lengths and is fine in the 80-150 range closer up (2-3m). But to get sharp focus at 200mm and close range the only answer is to manual focus using magnified live view (not necessarily with a tripod). At closest focus I admit the quality is poor at 200mm.<br>

Regarding f2.8, I get sharp results but some haloing along pale edges at 2-3m, fine further away. By f4, no halos.<br>

This lens is a fantastic tool for the price on 24/36Mp sensors imo.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Shun, that was an awesome performance on that test shot. I guess you get what you pay for.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Shun, that was an awesome performance on that test shot. I guess you get what you pay for.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Quality usually comes with a price. The new 80-400 AF-S VR is surprisingly excellent for a 5X zoom, although that 5X is entirely in the telephoto range, so it is not that extreme. But then, the $2700 price tag is also higher than expected, at least to me.</p>

<p>I would expect similar results from the 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR. I am curious about what Sandra finds out about her lens. All three versions of the 80-200mm/f2.8 with screwdriver AF, i.e. pre-AF-S, have the same optical formula. Back in 1989, I bought the first push-pull version, and that was my very first AF lens, but I sold it years ago so that I no longer have one for testing.</p>

[RaymondC]

<p>I cannot recall the details but these have been my experience, I *think* it was when I was 135mm or longer and at normal - close focus distance. 20ft or 30ft it was sharp. I did tests in the house, when I AF it from the dining room to the lounge's curtain ... tripod etc. For me it wasn't useable for portraiture so I sold it. So it wasn't just super close to get the super limited dof.</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00RnBz<br /> http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00VEvl</p>

<p>As I mentioned, I paid for a inspection at Nikon. Came back within spec. Not sure if this is how it is and hearing from the few others who had this quality too or if my lens was a bit out but still within spec and so was the body the two combined = not so good. But I did try this on a D2h as well. Back then I als had 2x D70 bodies too, same also.</p>

<p>Edit. Mine was a new bought AF-D two touch twist lens. Bought from HKG shouldn't be an issue cos the inspection came back fine. Haven't bought a replacement yet since I don't need the convenience, after being burnt once, may just get a second hand prime maybe. I also know one amateur who turned pro for wedding/children photog, she now uses a Canon 135/2 instead of the 70-200. I know diff brand and her lens was maybe fine as is the Nikon 70-200 but goes to show that some people don't necessarily need this despite its popularity. Her issue was that it gave her wrist/arm strains.</p>

[sandra_grunzinger]

<p>Thanks, Ray. Your info has been particularly helpful. I already requested an RMA from B&H, so I guess now I need to decide if I can live with it not being multi-functional as a portrait lens or not. Like Andrew pointed out, I didn't find this mentioned in any reviews, which is why I was surprised by it.</p>

[RaymondC]

<p>Yep, you name it. The reviews I read made no mention either so I was thinking this pro lens with its higher price tag should be of a similar optical quality. Mine wasn't as sharp as the f/4.5-5.6 both in the same era. </p>

[daniel_bliss]

<p>My experience with the 80-200 AF-D is that it just wasn't all that good wide open near the telephoto end. Stop it down to f4 if you're operating in 150 to 200mm and you'll be just fine. Nikon's original 80-200 2.8 lenses — the huge manual focus version and the very slow focusing AF version — are better in this regard than either of the AF-D versions, the one touch or the two touch, though they don't focus as close. Starting with the 80-200 AFS, they improved again at the telephoto end.</p>