johnw63 Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 <p>I've been sort of waiting for the prices to drop and my bank account to move up for a while, so that I could purchase an 80-200mm f2.8 AF lens. I'm just a hobbyist and I don't need the newest, fastest, bestest lens, but, I am looking for an AF lens to fit where I use my 75-150 Series E for auto races. The Series E is nice and small, but I do have to prefocus for fast moving shots. If I had money to burn, I'd look at something that goes to 300mm, and leave my 300mm F4.5 at home too, but... that's not going to happen soon.</p> <p>So, below the newest version, so that I can find good deals on a used one, how do they stack up ? I think I've read that the one that was before the AF-S ( came with tripod mount ) version had faster auto focus than the previous ones. I'm not sure how MUCH faster it is or if it is worth the extra price. If you've used this family of lenses, let me know your thoughts on them. </p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellis_vener_photography Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 The 80-200mm f/2.8D was very good. This is the one with separate zoom and focus controls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas J. Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 I have the 80-200 f/2.8D for shooting sports and other events for my little PJ gig with the paper and it's an excellent lens. Used it for birding as well in my spare time too. Doesn't have VR, but I'm always shooting at a minimum of 1/500 on on monopod, so it works fine for my needs. I had rented the 70-200mm VR a few times and that one is bigger and heavier than the 80-200 and a lot more expensive but it's totally awesome. I've never used third party zooms like this so I don't know what their deal is but I'm a bit of a snob about using only Nikkor lenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnw63 Posted January 7, 2014 Author Share Posted January 7, 2014 <p>That's the one where the price jumps a bit. About $400 for the one touch zoom in EX condition to about $425 in BGN condition or $515 for EX for the newer one.</p> <p>Is it worth the difference, or is the best deal to go with the BGN of the newer style ? </p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas J. Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 There's a "push/pull" zoom version of the 80-200 as well but I've never used one, although I once had a Nikkor 36-72 Series E that had that type of zoom. Didn't quite like it, but that's just me. Not sure if the push/pull 80-200's all have the tripod collars though, but if it's a Nikkor, you can rest knowing that it will have great optics nonetheless. The tripod collar is a must for me and I always use a monopod, even if it's a bit cumbersome when shooting football and soccer....baseball not as much cumbersome. On my D7000 the AF is fast and I rarely use MF. IMO, you'd probably be better off with the regular newer zoom version like I have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NetR Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 <p>There have been a lot of versions - all optically good. </p> <p>Here's Thom Hogan's review of the version Ellis referred to: <a href="http://www.bythom.com/nikkor-80-200-lens.htm">http://www.bythom.com/nikkor-80-200-lens.htm</a></p> <p>The big issues for you would be I think (1) tripod ring or not and (2) AF or AF-S.</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hector Javkin Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 <p>The push-pull version was slower to autofocus and had no tripod collar or place to put one, a bad thing in such a heavy long lens. Attaching the lens and putting the camera body on a tripod resulted in a large mass well in front of the tripod mount. There were some clumsy after-market brackets for mounting the lens on a tripod, but I bet they're hard to find now.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wouter Willemse Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 <p>I have the 2-ring AF-D version Ellis mentions, and it's a fine lens for sure. On my D300, the AF speed is really fine; the only point where it gets slow is when it starts hunting, but it has a focus limiter which helps reducing that problem too. For tracking moving items, I typically found it fast enough.<br> Before the D300, I used it on a D80, which seemed to have a bit more problem driving the AF, so it does matter on which body you'll be using this lens.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_halliwell Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 <p>If money is a real issue, the push-pull is a steal. Yes, it's pretty unbalanced without a tripod foot....but for auto sport I wouldn't think a tripod is normal. So handheld is just fine.</p> <p>AF speed is a bit body related..... which do you have?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunray1 Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 The 80-200 2-ring has already very good IQ and ok AF speed. Does hunt a bit in low light sometimes though... Second hand a very good price/quality ratio! Recently switched to the AF-S and this one definitely is even more sharper and has more bite/pop. Love this lens! Fast AF too and I don't mind no VR. Reportedly risk of problem with AF motor but I took the chance and so far so good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dieter Schaefer Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 <blockquote> <p>Is it worth the difference, or is the best deal to go with the BGN of the newer style ?</p> </blockquote> <p>Definitely worth the difference to get the newer two-ring style.</p> <p>I owned the two-ring AF-D for some eight years and traded up for a 70-200/2.8 AF[-S VR (not VRII) about 1 1/2 years ago. Faster AF, VR, and also the better balance with the newer (though slightly heavier) AF-S version were the main factors in that decision. Which was made before the new 70-200/4 AF-S VR (III) came out - otherwise I would own that one now; it's half the weight of the f/2.8 one.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Garrard Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 <p>There are <i>three</i> versions of the 80-200 AF (non-S) f/2.8. Details <a href="http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/AFNikkor/AF-Nikkor80200mm/index.htm">here</a>. They apparently all have the same optics. The first version is extremely slow to focus (I had one, although it had aperture issues and . The second - AF-D, one-ring - version is supposedly much faster to focus, although it's rare and I've never seen one - it may be cheaper than the two-ring, especially if misidentified. The third, and much more common, two-ring version is definitely reasonably fast, at least on a body with a reasonably powerful motor.<br /> <br /> None of these are very good at close range, but are much better at a distance; I got a two-ring (after my broken on-ring experience) so a friend could take some shots at my wedding with my D700, but after I got a D800 I bit the bullet and got a 70-200 VR 2. I believe the 80-200 AF-S f/2.8 has substantially better optics, but apparently there are no spares available for it, so caveat emptor (and don't drop it).<br /> <br /> On a DX body, don't rule out the 70-200 VR mk 1 if you can afford it. It has corner issues at 200mm on FX, but for DX it's a fine performer.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pge Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 <p>Some don't mind the lack of VR, and some shooting situations cannot take advantage of it. That said, since using VR I would never buy a lens this long without it. If I couldn't afford it I would wait.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User_4754088 Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 <p>I've got the AF-D version and it's great for basketball, swimming, and volleyball. I personally wouldn't use it for motor sports. </p> <p>I used to cover motorcycle roadracing and I've never found an autofocus lens that worked at the speed the motorcycles/cars are moving. I used a 300mm and focused to a point on the track where I knew the action was going to take place (brake markers coming into a corner, etc) and wait for the bikes/cars to hit that spot each lap.</p> <p>Best,<br> -Tim</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Garrard Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 <p>Oops. I've just noticed that I got chopped off. Sorry. My one-ring 80-200 mk1 had a sticky aperture (I think) and certainly wasn't very sharp at short range. I never established quite what was wrong with it, since it would cost more to fix than buy a replacement. I got the mk3 two-ring as a replacement. It's faster, but it's not fast like the AF-S lenses are fast, at least on a pro body.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_demarco Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 I wound up going with the AF-S version. Found a good example on KEH, and also picked up a TC-14E converter with it. VR was a non issue for me because I use a monopod as often as I can. Great lens that teams up pretty well with the T/C. Shot this one with the above combination.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_bouknight1 Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 <p>I had the 1-ring AF-D (otherwise discussed here as the 2nd version), the 80-200 AF-S, and now have the 70-200VR1. My friend has the VR2 that I can borrow. I also have a 75-150E, but never had the 2 ring 80-200 AFD. </p> <p>My 75-150 seems to be very sharp. I would not expect any of the 80-200 versions to deliver significantly better images than the 75-150 other than more in focus keepers of moving objects, but the 2.8s have AF and a little more reach, of course.</p> <p>Has anyone directly compared the AF speed of the AF-D push pull vs the 2 ring? I think much of the slow AF discussions go back to the first version used on early AF bodies. My experience is that most current bodies can drive most of the older lenses with enough speed to track running athletes. I had good success with the AFD push pull version shooting soccer with a D2Hs, and shot some basketball with it on later bodies. The 2-ring probably is faster focusing, but the real world difference may not be that many more in focus keepers.</p> <p>To be sure the VR1 version I have certainly focuses faster, and I think is the bargain of the bunch for combining VR, AF-S and IQ. For my sports shooting, the slightly weaker corners are not much of an issue. </p> <p>So, after this ramble, I would not pay a lot more money for an AF-D 2 ring than the AF-D push pull 2nd version. A lot more money gets a purchaser just too close to the VR1 used pricing, IMO. There are some threads that indicate that the 2 ring might be more fragile, as well. The push-pull seemed very rugged. Find a bargain on a push-pull, but try one out to see if you like it first. Also, the pricing of the AF-S 80-200 version seems pretty close to the AF-D now, and adds fast AF with a little better IQ by most accounts.</p> <p>Agree with the pre-focus concept of shooting racing, not sure the cameras (D4s mabye?) can lock on a fast car at close quarters and track.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Garrard Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 <p>I've tried the mk1 push-pull 80-200mm f/2.8 AF on an F5 and a D700 - not far off the fastest autofocus Nikon can do, although I don't promise a D3 or D4 couldn't best them. It's horrendously slow - I think due to the number of turns required to move the lens any distance. I've not timed it, but if you told me one second to go from end-to-end, I'd believe you. Those bodies can move a light lens like the 28-80 f/3.3-5.6 AF-G pretty instantly. The two-ring is much better, and pretty capable of following moving action. I'm told the mk2 is closer in performance to the two-ring mk3. I suspect between those two, the primary advantages of the two ring are that parts are more available and that it doesn't zoom when you get the balance wrong and the whole system slides through the focus ring. I was unimpressed with either of them (hence the 70-200 purchase), but they were back-up to my 200 f/2, so I guess I was expecting a lot.<br /> <br /> On DX, I'd look very closely at the 70-200 VR. The FX situation is harder, and after incrementally attempting to buy cheap options, it may be best just to save up until the current (or a third party) 70-200 is within reach. Even then, Canon's latest 70-200 seems to have the edge, so I'd not be too amazed if Nikon did another update at some point - though I suspect the 24-70 is higher on the "to do" list.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnw63 Posted January 8, 2014 Author Share Posted January 8, 2014 <p>My cameras are a D7000 and an F4, so it would be best to stay with an FX capable lens. I need to read up on the way to tell the difference between the AF versions, I guess. I like the 75-150mm because it is small and light. There are just some times when my distance from the action fell between the 150mm and my 300mm. I figured something that reached a bit further would help fill that gap. Not being a pro, with a vest and credentials means I can't get where I WANT to be, and I have to make due from father away. </p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Garrard Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 <p>John: The <a href="http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/AFNikkor/AF-Nikkor80200mm/index.htm">mir link</a> I gave is pretty clear about the versions if that helps. Summary: mk 3 has two rings (zoom and focus are separate; on the other two, pushing and pulling the focus ring zooms the lens), mk 1 has a shiny barrel and an AF limiting ring, mk 2 has a matte (speckled) barrel and no AF limits. Mk1 is definitively very slow to focus. I sympathise with your requirements, although for that range you might be best with a 70-300 VR (or the Tamron VC). If you win a lottery, there's the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8... Good luck.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_demarco Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 Hey John, Andrew makes a good suggestion about the 70-300VR. I have one of those also, outdoors with good light it works very well. I have never had credentials or a vest either, but have always managed to get some decent motorsports photos. If you like I could post up some images taken with the 70-300. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaymondC Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 <p>I had the separate zoom and focus one. Portrait distance not that in focus, sent to Nikon, came back no issues. At a distance it was fine like 10m plus ....</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now