Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8D Softness at 200mm

[jun_jung1]

<p>Hello guys, I bought used 80-200mm f/2.8D (2 Ring Version) from Keh. I've doing some test shots and I realized this softness at 200mm f/2.8. At f/4, it is sharp and it is sharp throughout the focal length at f/2.8, just not at 200mm. Here are some images. Is this normal? Could it be the haze?<br /> <br /> 200mm @ 2.8<br /> http://imgur.com/pE1WjuV</p>

<p>200mm @ 4<br /> http://imgur.com/qTEoglR</p>

<p>135mm @ 2.8<br /> http://imgur.com/4O87jp8</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Jun. Looks like a bit of back-focus to me, that's all. The plane of focus appears to have fallen on the rear-cap of the lens and the table leg. Did you let the lens AF by itself, or did you manually focus using Live View?</p>

<p>Some AF focus error is to be expected, but not overall lack of sharpness. So you have to determine if the lens is capable of sharp images by using magnified Live-View to critically focus the lens. Plus it's not possible to tell a lot from those comparatively small images you've posted. 100% crops would tell us a lot more.</p>

<p>What do you mean by "haze" BTW? Most tele zooms of that era exhibited some residual SA at full aperture and this shows as a lowering of micro contrast with a slight halo effect. Is that what you mean? Because that's normal for older zooms without the benefit of aspherical elements. I think if you want better performance you're going to have to pay a bit more for a more modern design.</p>

<p>FWIW, I took a few test shots with an 80-200mm AF-D Nikkor that I was considering buying. I wasn't impressed with its performance wide open at 200mm either, but that particular lens looked as if it had been damaged also, because the plane of focus was visibly tilted. Needless to say I didn't buy it.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>1. You are taking a shot at the aperture and focal length that has the thinnest depth of field possible with the lens. 2. Also, the subject you are photographing is not flat. Very very little is sharp in focus anyway because of the 200mm f2.8 situation, and the curve of the subject is exacerbating that. It's not a good test, in other words.</p>

<p>Also, on a tripod? What's the shutter speed you shot at?</p>

[robert_bouknight1]

<p>The AF-D I had a while back was somewhat less sharp at 200mm/2.8 & close focus distances than the later AF-S zooms.</p>

<p>Others can chime in, but I think the results you posted are probably typical for that lens.</p>

[kari_oinonen]

<p>I got mine 80-200 to a totally acceptable condition by doing the af fine-tune. The problem with that lens type is the fact, that the needed af fine-tune value changes a bit depending on the aperture, focal length/zoom setting and focusing distance.<br>

The ends of zoom setting may differ most what comes to the needed af fine-tune value. The combination of f at 2.8, less than 2 meters of focusing distance and fl at 200mm is the most challenging for phase detection af with this lens. If you do a live view af with tripod you will see that the problem is at least partly in the af system.<br>

No lens is perfect. It helps to know how your lens behaves.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>At closer focal range (less than 5~7 metres, more or less), it's a fairly known issue; several people here reported it, and mine had it too. At 180mm it's fine, at longer distances it's fine, at f/4 it's fine - it's really only at 200mm, wide open, at close range. Your results look pretty much consistent with how mine worked.<br>

For sure, do test with a tripod at sufficient shutterspeeds, but should you still encounter it, it's not a problem unhead of. In practical use, it's a bit a non-issue though, as depth of field in these scenarios is so little that stopping down a bit makes sense anyway.</p>

[paul_k1664875007]

<p>I had the 1st version of the 2.8/80-200 AF ED and later the 2nd edition 2.8/80-200 AF-D ED.<br>

The latter was my bread and butter workhorse for nearly twenty years, used intinitally on film bodies like F801 to F100, and later on DSLR's from D70S, D1/D1H/D1X/D2X to D3 for anything from event, to fashion, to catwalk.<br>

<br />Even wide open the IQ of the 2nd version was more then acceptable wide open on the aforementioned camera's, just like the AF speed, while the lack of a tripod foot wasn't a real issue.</p>

<p>However when I upgraded to a D800, the softness wide open, especially at 200mm, became quite evident and overly noticeable, and may seem like a haze when used on finely detailed subjects.<br>

So with much regret I sold it as part of my upgrade to a 2.8/70-200 VRII. Much sharper wide open at 200, while the focus breathing is not an issue since I use primes when I shoot close up portrait/beauty, tripod foot is nice, don't use the VR.</p>

<p> </p>

[mon_goose]

<p>That lens is a terrific performer except it's known to shift focus when close focusing at 200mm f2.8 .<br /> <br /> The remedy is straightforward: either focus further away, zoom out a bit, or stop down.</p>

[chulster]

Sorry to resurrect an old thread, but I just obtained my first 80-200mm f/2.8D a little while ago and wanted to share my observations regarding the backfocus at 200mm that many members have remarked on. From tests with my copy (which I have no reason to believe is a bad one), I can add that backfocus does not occur only at 200mm, but exists to some degree even down to 105mm when shooting at the minimum focus distance. Nor, at the longer focal lengths, do you have to be near the MFD to experience backfocus—at focal lengths near 200mm, backfocus exists even at 5 meters subject distance. Finally, as the previous commenter mentioned, the lens also has focus shift, which complicates the picture further.

 

I put together a table of AFFT adjustments for this lens at various subject distances, focal lengths, and apertures. The covered distances start at a maximum of 5 meters, as any focus error at greater distances is negligible. Similarly, I only show AFFT values for up to f/5.6, as no additional correction beyond the f/5.6 value is needed at smaller apertures.

 

These values are not exact, and they may not work well for anyone except me. Still, I hope this may be of use to someone, if only to inspire independent testing. Note that these values are to be used with the "default" AFFT setting, not the "saved value" one. This is because the saved value setting is not as powerful as the default setting, and the amount of focus error is sometimes more than the saved value AFFT setting can compensate for.

 

5.0 meters
            f/2.8     f/4   f/5.6
     80mm       0       0       0
    105mm       0       0       0
    135mm       0       0       0
    185mm      -3      -5      -5
    200mm      -5      -8      -8

4.0 meters
            f/2.8     f/4   f/5.6
     80mm       0       0       0
    105mm       0       0       0
    135mm       0       0      -2
    185mm      -5     -10     -12
    200mm      -5     -10     -15

2.5 meters
            f/2.8     f/4   f/5.6
     80mm       0       0       0
    105mm       0       0       0
    135mm      -2      -4      -6
    185mm     -10     -20     -20
    200mm     -15     -20     -20

1.5 meters
            f/2.8     f/4   f/5.6
     80mm       0       0       0
    105mm       0       0      -3
    135mm      -5      -5     -10
    185mm       –       –       –
    200mm       –       –       –

 

The dashes for subject distance 1.5 meters at focal lengths 185mm and 200mm are there because it is not possible to obtain good focus (using PDAF) at the MFD of 1.5 meters at these focal lengths, even with AFFT set to the maximum negative value. Fortunately, the lens focuses fine in Live View (CDAF) at all focal lengths, apertures, and subject distances.

[RaymondC]

I had an issue with this lens before. Were you a bit closer to the subject? I sent mine to Nikon but it was checked out OK. So at the time I went back to the cheapie 80-200mm AFD F4.5-5.6 and later I got a 70-200mm F4.

 

Stopping down the aperture helped of course but to me it was still never really tack sharp. When I focus the lens at a longer distance maybe 10m or something at all apertures it was much sharper including wide open.

Edited April 11, 2020 by RaymondC