douglas_knisely

It is a well-known "feature" that the 80-200 f/2.8 lenses do not AF accurately below about 15 feet on DSLRs as mentioned above (perhaps even further away). This is quite a robust result and a serious problem, verified on many Nikon DSLR bodies (D50, D80, D300, D200, D700) and with three copies of the lens. The problem is NOT correctable by the focus compensation in the D300+ models; they don't go far enough. The focus error is significant and it is consistent (not random). Manual focus can be better. Using LiveView and focusing manually or automatically will produce stellar results.

 

This is the one huge drawback of the 80-200s; otherwise, they are fantastic lenses with outstanding optics.

 

I don't use my 80-200 much anymore because the 70-300VR beats the 80-200 over the overlapping range for center sharpness (although not for corner sharpness), and the 70-300VR handles and performs like a dream. It's not very good beyond 200mm, but it is excellent from 70-200mm. The 80-200 is relegated to slow, careful tripod shooting situations where I can take the time to focus manually or using LV.

 

Thus, I'm also waiting for the 70-200VR II, hopefully out next year finally.

 

Doug

Are you sure you really need longer than 200mm? I think you might want to seriously consider the 200f/4 Micro AF. This lens has excellent background exclusion and working distance in a reasonable size/weight (about the same as the 80-200 f/2.8). It goes to 1:1 without extension or diopters, and can work well with diopters, too.

 

I looked at the 105VR (didn't like the lack of tripod collar) and Sigma 150, but eventually went for a used 200f/4 Micro AF and am very happy with it (although I haven't gotten enough free time to do much with it lately!). They are expensive ($900 used; $1300+ new).

Seems to be time for a D80 replacement. The D80 doesn't match well against Canon. If history repeats, I expect Nikon will surprise people with how much D300 stuff gets into a D90. The D80 is very close to the D200 with exception of the build quality. The competition isn't the D300, which will stand very well on its own, but rather Canon. The ergonomic and control benefits of the D200/300 over the D80/90 are substantial, and they won't have any problem getting people to pay the extra $700-800. Besides (and this is important!), look what a sizable fraction of the D300 market has already purchases in the initial buying frenzy (including people who overbought because a D90 wasn't available). Just how many D300s do you think they can sell before the 5D replacement absolutely forces a D400 with FX?!?

 

I expect Nikon will never produce another DSLR (except possibly for a very, very low end entry level) without live view. It is such an obvious feature. They will find some way to cripple it as well as the 3" display. I would not be surprised to see a slow (framerate) version of the D300 12 Mpixel sensor with slower readout; the DR and high ISO capabilities will be necessary to compete, and the D80 matched the D200 in this area.

 

They will probably leave out true mirror lock and ergonomic pluses of the D300.

 

AF is anybody's guess. Seems highly unlikely that they will go to the D300 metering and 51-point AF system, but probably some baby version of it. It might very well be a crippled 51-point AF system if that isn't too expensive to make the $1000 price point.

 

If you think of the evolution, Nikon and their competitors will probably move more features into a D90 than we expect. After all, the next step will be full frame in order to keep up with Canon, and that will only be in mid-2009 most likely.

 

Competition is good when you're on the consumer end of the equation! We haven't seen anything yet; the rate of change is going to increase, not decrease.

I would definitely recommend that you pass on the D80. It is due to be updated or replaced soon, and it is just not a big enough step. The recommendation to find a used 17-55 is not a bad idea. I bought the 17-55 fairly early on to use on my D50, and I have never regretted the choice. Buying a NEW 17-55 today is questionable given the inexorable progress toward FF for the higher-end enthusiast bodies. But used would be reasonable.

 

I added a D80 earlier this year, and I'm satisfied because my expectations were low. First, I got the body for airline miles, so it didn't really cost money. I would not have spent real money on a D80, but would have waiting on the D300 to become available. In any case, it took a couple of months for me to adapt to the D80 because it is so much less forgiving than the D50 in exposure and for high ISO. I'm used to the D80 and know how to get accurate exposures pushed toward the right on the histogram without blowing any channel, which is absolutely essential in order to avoid noise even at low ISOs. The 10 MPixel sensors are just a lot more demanding...

 

As far as the body goes, the D50 is capable and I think you should stick with it until you see what the D80's successor will be. Then decide whether you need to upgrade to a [D90 or whatever] or D300. Go for the lenses in the mean time.

I'm not sure that I understand the statements from the original poster. Based on the results on the flickr set, the D300 is whumping the D80 for image quality. The sharpness on the 100% crops is spectacular for the D300, whereas the D80 100% crops all look soft-ish -- very much like D200 images (no surprise there).

 

Also, the colors look much better on the D300 images. Frankly, I'm surprised that the D300 images are that much better in non-high-ISO tests. This is the most impressed I've been with D300 results yet.

I love the ThinkTank belt system and their lens holders. You can rotate the belt around to get at any of the attached gear, and the belt comes off quickly and easily for when you enter a car or need to sit down, etc. The ThinkTank holders all have rain covers built in in case you get caught in the rain. Lowepro also makes belts and holders. Right now, I actually use a Lowepro belt with a ThinkTank LensChanger 50 (which is big enough to hold any of my 70-300VR, 17-55 f/2.8 WITH the huge hood, or Sigma 10-20 (which are my usual 3-lens travel kit). I also use a ThinkTank "All The Other Stuff" bag for, well, all the other stuff. The Lowepro belt works fine with ThinkTank components. I just ordered a Lowepro lens holder that is big enough for the 70-200 or 80-200 f/2.8, but it hasn't arrived yet.

 

I think either the Lowepro or ThinkTank systems are quite good.

I think your last example is considerably over-sharpened. Optimal would be somewhere in between the in-camera normal and high examples.

I would second the suggestion to look into the 70-300VR. If you find that you are willing to carry a two-lens kit, the 17-55 + 70-300VR make a great combination. That's my standard travel kit; I add the Sigma 10-20 if I want to carry three. These are the reasons:

 

- 18-200 is amazing for what it is, but the IQ is never terrific. I prefer to be able to keep a CPL on the 17-55 most of the time during daylight and I find that FOR ME, the 70-300VR spends almost all the time on the camera.

- 70-300VR IQ is outstanding from 70-220mm, perhaps a little longer in a pinch. Sharpness in the center easily beats my 80-200f/2.8, and it is probably close to the 70-200VR, which is very cumbersome to lug around (although I'm considering switching once the rumored 70-200VR replacement comes out this year). Corner sharpness is better than acceptable, but not quite as good as my 80-200 (at f/8). Color, contrast, bokeh, and CA are very good from 70-240mm. AF-S and VR work very well.

- Carrying a 5T, 6T, or 500D diopter turns the 70-300VR into a very adequate poor-person's macro lens when traveling lightweight.

- 70-300VR is much better than the 18-200 over the entire overlapping range.

- 70-300VR works surprisingly well on tripod, despite it being cantilevered out precariously without a tripod collar. With my ballhead and moderately good tripod, I get much better results that I was anticipating. It's not worth lugging the 80-200f/2.8, and possibly not even worth lugging a 70-200VR. Of course, lack of f/2.8 does impede creative control.

 

Although I'm kind of shamed to admit it, the 70-300VR is my go-to lens for a wide variety of situations. Stay away from 240-300mm and you will get great IQ. At the long end, it is typical of that class of lenses; however, my 70-300G ($99 gray market version!) is considerably sharper at 300mm and wide open.

 

Nonetheless, this is all predicated on your willingness to carry two lenses. I have finally settled on a belt-pack with Think Tank lens and accessory holders, which can swing around for quick switches. It works fantastically for me, and I'm very happy.

 

Doug

Capture NX is crashing on File Save operations for me quite frequently. At times, it will crash 100% when I save to NEF.

 

I installed a .NET service pack for .Net 2.0, and it seems to have gotten worse. I assume we'll see a 1.3.1 soon.

I wanted to follow up on this thread to report the outcome. I returned my 80-200 f/2.8 to Nikon (for the 3rd round) in early October and got it back in early December. I have finally had a chance to retest it thoroughly, and it seems that they may have improved the adjustment a bit, but qualitatively, the results are the same:

 

- My 80-200 is definitely improved from before the Nikon "adjustment" that reduced it's image quality significantly. Nikon has restored it. It matches the results that I see reported and measured by my friends.

- AF simply doesn't work on my D50 or D80; I've since read that Nikon indicates this behavior is normal on DSLRs, at least for <10' focusing distance.

- @200mm, center sharpness approaches my 70-300VR at overlapping apertures when manually focused. Corner sharpness is close and arguably a little bit better than the 70-300VR. Compared to my 200 f/4 Micro (AF version), it loses across the board (to be expected).

- @80mm, without AF (which fails to come even close) I can't manually focus it well enough to come anywhere close to my 70-300VR across the board.

 

These results confirm what is widely reported and is also verified by my friends that the 80-200 f/2.8D (two-ring) is just not really all that great optically, despite its aged sentimental reputation. It's just not up to the task of handling high pixel-density DSLR image sensors.

 

I've been tempted to sell both the 80-200 and the 70-300VR and get the 70-200VR, but I think I'll wait on the long-rumored 70-200VR replacement (which Thom has been rumor-mongering lately as well). It is pretty clear that the current 70-200VR is significantly better optically vs. the 80-200, but it could definitely be better with an update.

 

Thanks for all the comments earlier.

 

Doug

 

P.S. Eric Arnold - yeah, I'll keep that in mind next time. ;)

Regarding:

> Elliot Bernsteinphoto.net patron, Nov 06, 2007; 04:50 a.m.

 

> I have used D200s since they came out until a few months ago. I

> temporarily switched to D80's for the last few months, I have

> experienced several small but noticeable differences:

 

> Focusing of the D80 is superior, especially in low light.

 

That seems to be a really surprising statement (not that I agree or disagree). Could you elaborate??

Kurt -- I think your experiences with a D40x are reflecting JPEG and in-camera noise reduction improvements. I've not heard of anything suggesting that the D80 or D40x offer any significant improvement in high-ISO noise in RAW images vs. the D200. Have you seen otherwise?

 

I know that the in-camera NR in the D80 is better than in the D200, but at the expense of a lot of detail, which is a tradeoff that I'd rather control in PP of a RAW image.

I've had a couple of good experiences with Cameta. The included software is worthless as others have said. I would be more concerned about the exact state of the camera warranty for a new camera body purchase. If you're getting a good deal, it is probably worth the risk as bodies (especially low-end bodies) have a very limited lifetime anyway as technology keeps changing.

Mauro - In my D80 experience, the matrix metering is so unstable and unpredictable that even the slighted change of composition can result in an exposure different of a full stop or more. I experienced that just yesterday evening. So the normal lens variation (probably even more than 1/3 stop in some cases, depending on how far down you stop) is just further noise in the exposure equation.

 

I used to be a D80 exposure apologist, but I've decided that I agree with the hoards who consider it to be flaky and random! That's why I like the D80 for careful, controlled shooting, but not for walk-around usage. Usually I stick with my D50 for walk-around shooting, but I brought the D80 on my current business trip. The exposure was very erratic yesterday, and I'm going to switch back to the D50 on future trips.

 

Doug

Regarding Mike Blume's comment - I think it is important to remember that the camera takes a meter reading with the aperture of the lens all the way open, and then calculates the expected difference when the lens is stopped down to the chosen (or calculated) value. If there is a non-linearity in the response of the lens when stopping down, then the exposure will be off. It would be interesting to compare how a given lens exposes at various apertures to see whether the exposure are even. My guess is that the better lenses would be more linear and the cheaper lenses (or older lenses with sticky or slow aperture blades) would be less linear.

 

But those are just suggest experiments. AFA the original poster's question, I think the exposures that he's seeing are well withing the normal tolerance of metering accuracy even if the light and all other variances were controlled (which they aren't to make matters even worse). I definitely don't see a problem.

 

Doug

There is really only one difference between the D40x and D80 that would affect your ability to get pixel-sharp images - the D80 has a Delayed Exposure feature, which delays the exposure until 400ms after the mirror flips up. This is a somewhat crappy substitute for mirror lockup, but it is an important feature.

 

By the way, the MOST important thing that you need is not a D40x or a D80, but good technique and a very good tripod/ballhead combination. If you get a beautifully exposed image that is pixel sharp on a D40 or D50 with the good support, the results will be a lot better even at huge resolutions than with a D80 on a cheap tripod. If you aren't using a tripod, forget about it! The reason that you need good exposure is so that the image can hold up to the PPing that will be necessary to upscale and sharpen the image to the printer resolution.

 

So, if you really care, buy the $1,000 tripod and ballhead first, buy the good lenses second, and buy the latest body third. Sad, but true.

 

Doug

I think you are actually seeing quite a small variation that could more than be accounted for by slight variations in the outdoor light and in the boundaries of what is included in the scene. The matrix metering is trying to match the "scene" against its database of sample scenes and find one with the closest match. Your scene is kind of bland and non-specific, so exactly what it matches to could vary widely due to very small differences.

 

As other posters have suggested, retry it with a plain colored subject (just a white wall or a solid of any color, really) with controlled lighting.

 

It would also be very interesting to set the exposure to a fixed value with a fixed color balance (e.g., f/8, 1/10th seconds, or whatever renders something neutral on the histogram), then reshoot with each lens and see how the lenses vary.

 

Doug

Thanks to all the responders. My first reaction is that I'm very surprised that Nikon would let any misadjustment slip through their tests (which are all explicitly listed). I guess that I'll be sending it back for round three...

 

I am very reluctant to send the D80 along with the lens because a) the D80 does not have AF problems with my other lenses, and b) the 80-200 focus problems are common with my D50. The last thing that I want is for them to adjust the D80 to the misadjusted 80-200!

 

Doug

I have been very happy with my Sigma 10-20. I had the chance to test a Sigma 10-20 against the Nikon 12-24 last year, and the results were not conclusive in favor of either lens in terms of CA, IQ, sharpness, color, etc. at f/8 (which I consider to be a typical aperture for this type of lens where you want wide DoF). I would guess that the Nikon is better wide open. I bought the Sigma, and a I really appreciate the extra 2mm. I virtually always use the lens at 10mm. Distortion is not significant for non-critical work. I personally prefer the handling to the Nikon. The HSM focusing works very effectively and quietly, and the focus and zoom rings are in the location that I find natural.

 

Doug

I have an 80-200f/2.8D (two ring version) which is giving me surprising trouble

after serving me well for a long time. I've had the lens for a couple of years,

and have always gotten good IQ from it with a D50 (or so I thought), both for

closeup work (with a 5T) and for distance work throughout the focal range.

 

About 18 months ago, I dropped the lens + D50, and it landed on the lenshood,

which sacrificed its life valiantly, but the 80-200 and D50 kept working

perfectly (with the exception of damage to the plastic ring that holds the lens

holder and into which filters screw. I managed to pry that back into a usable,

if slightly mangled, orientation and everything was fine.

 

Last July, I decided to ship the lens back to Nikon to have the annoying and

cosmetic issues repaired. (The A/M focus ring had also lost the sprint behind

the lock, but that was the case when I obtained the lens used.) After several

weeks and $250, Nikon sent it back and it looks brand new. They even repaired

the tiniest cosmetic flaws in the pain finish. However, when I tried to use it,

I was getting soft images. I had added a D80 in the mean time, and images

seemed poor, but I was not being careful, so I wasn't really worried. A few

weeks ago, I finally decided to test the lens, and the results were SHOCKING.

On both the D50 and D80, it was as if the focus was way off, or even worse like

there was a convergence problem. All fine detail showed blurry edges up to

about 5-10 pixel widths. I sent it back to Nikon, and just received it back,

repaired for no charge, with a long list of items (RPL FOCUSING ELEMENT, CKD

LENS ELEMENT, CKD ZOOMING MECHANISM, CKD IMAGE TEST, CKD INFINITY FOCUS, CKD

EXPOSURE, GENERAL CHECK & CLEAN). However, focus is still poor (possibly

better, but still unacceptable). AF is completely unusable; it is now a MF lens.

 

I've now tested it carefully, and there are two issues. 1) AF is either front

or rear focusing; when I AF, details are always blurry. If I manually focus, I

get much better results, but still very soft. The AF CONSISTENTLY returns to

the mis-focussed point. 2) Even careful manually focusing provides image

quality worse than my 70-300VR (when the 70-300VR cantilevered from my tripod

should perform horribly!). At f/2.8, it seems to be horrible no matter what I

do, which was not my experience originally.

 

I consulted with a friend who has the same 80-200f/2.8D and a 70-300VR, and

strangely she reported the same two issues - her 70-300VR is beating the 80-200

in IQ (although hers are closer than mine) and hers is front or rear focusing as

well (to her huge surprise).

 

All tests were done on good tripod with careful technique for both of us. Timer

release; delayed exposure on D80. All tests were at f/8, although I tried

f/2.8, f/11, and f/4 on the 80-200, and the results were no better (and 2.8 was

horrible). I also tried using flash to eliminate support issues altogether with

no change.

 

So my questions are:

 

1) Is the IQ of the older 80-200f/2.8D lenses just not all that great? Should

it not be able to get pixel-level sharp even at 6 MPixels?

2) Could the 70-300VR really outperform the 80-200 at f/8 by a wide margin?

3) Should I send the lens back for a third time and ask them to correct the

back or front focus?

4) Should I just sell the lens and by another prime? I also have the 17-55 and

200 f/4 Micro AF among other lenses, so I could just use the 70-300VR for

70-200mm range at f/8 where it is strong, e.g., for landscape. f/2.8 on my

80-200 is unusable anyway.

 

Sorry for the long post!

 

Thanks for any insight.

 

Doug

The D40 is a bit more forgiving and I would fairly strongly recommend it to your friends over the D40x. While on the surface the 10 MPixel D40x would appear to offer better image quality and potential for cropping, in practice the resolution of recorded images will generally be less than 6 MPixels. In order to get sufficient sharpness to match the 10 MPixel sensors, you need to be using very good technique (including a good tripod) and probably better lenses than the consumer lenses that you are likely to use with the D40 or D40x. My opinion is that anybody interested in pursuing very high image quality is probably going to be looking for higher end features such as mirror lock up (or at least the D80's delayed exposure mode) and depth of field preview.

 

More importantly, the 6 MPixel cameras (D40 and D50, in particular) offer much better high ISO performance than any of the 10 MPixel cameras. Therefore, in practical shooting, they are much more forgiving because you can just turn on Auto ISO mode and forget about it. The results will be more keepers that look better without a lot of complex processing. Getting extremely good higher ISO images out of the 10 MPixel cameras requires more careful post-processing of RAW images. Getting low noise on the 10 MPixel cameras also requires much more accurate exposure, while the D50 and D40 provide pretty good image quality when significantly under-exposed (with less fussing in post-processing).

 

I would strongly recommend going with the D40 and putting the money into lenses, which will provide much more shooting opportunities.

 

By the way, I use a D50 and a D80, but for very different purposes. I reserve the D80 for serious shooting, RAW only with tripod, and with careful post-processing. The D50 is my clear choice for casual, walk-around and travel photography due to it's wonderful high-ISO (which is even better on the D40!).