I am the new owner of a Nikon D700 DSLR

Is the manual Nikkor 80-200/2.8 better built than the AF versions of this lens? Which version would you get?
 
I would skip the build thing. Holding big camera and zoom and trying to zoom and manually focus isn't pleasing experience.
 
Ko.Fe. said:
I would skip the build thing. Holding big camera and zoom and trying to zoom and manually focus isn't pleasing experience.
Click to expand...

So cutting down on weight and getting AF as a bonus would actually be a better deal in the end. :bang: You are right.
There are many (very clean) AF lenses for sale for around $300 plus $45 shipping from Japan.
 
raid said:
Is the manual Nikkor 80-200/2.8 better built than the AF versions of this lens? Which version would you get?
Click to expand...

I cannot give an opinion on this as I have not used one. Or even seen one. They seem a bit hard to find. The build quality on the AF version is so good that I think most people just use one of those in MF mode. The first version AF lens kind of looks and feels like an MF lens anyway.

You might find it easier and as useful to buy something like this linked below - an AF lens with the AF unserviceable cheaply and use that as an MF lens. (They are robust but sometimes any lens can fail). I only mention it as an option as I do not think you would be disappointed and think it would be easier to find one of these. it is an option. In fact..........................

https://www.ebay.com/itm/AS-IS-Niko...=item2607b52960:g:CZwAAOSwYIpb08jD:rk:13:pf:0

Or, would you consider a slower 80-200mm? The 80-200mm AIS f4 is very highly regarded and these are cheap to buy due solely to the large number available over the years. I do own one of these and can say it lives up to my expectations. It is also much lighter.
 
The lens has some mold, Peter. Else, this is a good idea! Thanks.
I always wanted to use a 80-200/2.8, but I stuck to max aperture 4.0 and 4.5 in my old zooms. Now, I want to enjoy the faster zooms.
 
raid said:
The lens has some mold, Peter. Else, this is a good idea! Thanks.
I always wanted to use a 80-200/2.8, but I stuck to max aperture 4.0 and 4.5 in my old zooms. Now, I want to enjoy the faster zooms.
Click to expand...

I can understand your desire for faster zooms Raid. Good luck. Sorry I had not read the ad carefully and did not realize there was some fungus. This is common in Japan unfortunately because of the climate but often it is so minor it does not matter in practice. Though I like to get perfect lenses if I can. Fog in a lens can be worse than fungus as sometimes fog etches the glass and cannot be rectified whereas fungus at least can be cleaned almost always. I often buy from Japan as I find the sellers seem honest more often than not and when they identify issues with a lens when I get them I frequently find it is not as bad as described in their ad. They also tend to discount prices a lot for fairly minor issues.
 
I have had only excellent buying experiences from Japan dealers over the past years, Peter.
 
raid said:
So cutting down on weight and getting AF as a bonus would actually be a better deal in the end. :bang: You are right.
There are many (very clean) AF lenses for sale for around $300
Click to expand...

I totally concur. There are many other lighter lenses that may perform as well or better than the 80-200.

I would like to suggest the 70-300mm lens, such as this one at B&H (currently on backorder):

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/731073-REG/Nikon_2161B_Refurbished_AF_S_VR_Zoom_NIKKOR.html

I own this lens and have used it for a number of years. It is light enough to carry around all day, has VR and in addition has a wider focal range than the 80-200. The link at B&H suggests than it can be purchased for $349.

I should add that I have purchased refurbished lenses before and have not had any bad experiences with them.
 
Thank you for the tip. The 70-300 lens has 4.5-5.6 max aperture, but since it is leigh weight and has a fast AF, maybe this compensates.
What does this imply:

Telephoto zoom is designed for FX-format Nikon F-mount DSLRs, however is also compatible with DX models where it will provide a 105-450mm equivalent focal length range.

Is this lens a 70-300 zoom on the D700?
 
raid said:
Thank you for the tip. The 70-300 lens has 4.5-5.6 max aperture, but since it is leigh weight and has a fast AF, maybe this compensates.
What does this imply:

Telephoto zoom is designed for FX-format Nikon F-mount DSLRs, however is also compatible with DX models where it will provide a 105-450mm equivalent focal length range.

Is this lens a 70-300 zoom on the D700?
Click to expand...

Yes, they are just pointing out what the effective focal length would be on a crop body (APS-c) or on the D700 in DX crop mode. On Nikon's "FX" lens/bodies are full frame and "DX" are what they call APS-C sized sensors and lenses that only cover that sensor size.

Shawn
 
shawn said:
Yes, they are just pointing out what the effective focal length would be on a crop body (APS-c) or on the D700 in DX crop mode. On Nikon's "FX" lens/bodies are full frame and "DX" are what they call APS-C sized sensors and lenses that only cover that sensor size.
Click to expand...

Shawn's response is correct, in other words, the lens has an effective focal length of 70-300 on the D700.

If I used the lens on my D300, a crop sensor camera, the effective focal length would be 105-450.
 
Here is what I'd recommend:

Ultra Wide Zoom
1. Tokina 17-35 f4 Pro ATX. If you want an ultrawide this is a middle of the pack lens not a world beater. What sets it apart is its price. A competent performer built Tokina tough that's plenty sharp at f8 (where you shoot these things anyway) that's 1/2 the price (or more) of other .

2. Nikon 50 f1.4 AF-D
I love this lens. It's everything a nifty-fifty should be. Good samples under $200 used. DxO rates it slightly higher than the new G series. I believe that 50's should be as fast as you can get them.

Alternate: the venerable and cheap 50 1.8 AF-D

Alternate: Tamron 45mm f1.8 VC. Don't own but supposedly super shahp across the frame and all apertures and has vibration reduction for a 2-stop advantage. Also reasonably priced used. Better than the Sigma "Art" lens imo and way cheaper.

3. 70-210 AF-D. Make sure it's the "D" one. This is a good performer, plenty sharp and reasonable on the used market. Great old school build quality. (I recently somehow stole one for $35 on the aution site but that was a fluke. Expect to pay $80-100ish) This lens is known for blazingly fast auto-focus but only the "D" version. It is my telezoom forever.

Alternate: Nikon 80-200 AI-s. This is a manual focus breakthrough zoom and I must say its image quality is impressive. Incredible build quality.

4. 85mm f1.8 G. Fantastic ultra-sharp (even wide open as verified by MTF charts) short-tele for portraits. An instant classic near flawless lens that's reasonably priced.

Alternate 85mm f1.8 D. I didn't buy this because used prices make the newer "G" a better buy. Also a Nikon classic. (Don't own)

5. 35mm f2.0 AF-D. I love this lens. Reasonable on the used market. I will get dissed on review sites. But it's small, light, and renders beautifully. A Nikon classic.

6. An AI'd 200 f4 Q (or Q.C.) Cheap as chips 4 element telephoto with a built-in hood you can use as a baseball bat. Another lens I love. The newer AI-s 5 element version is supposedly better, sharper. But this lens is so simple it convinced me that low element count lenses are where it's at. Character to spare and a dimensional quality. It just renders beautifully. Magic.

7. Any 135 f2.8 by any manufacturer. Mine is an Imado (huh?) This is for portratis. I wouldn't usually get this focal length but they're so plentiful and so cheap, why not? Mine was $27. It's beautifully made and if it was a Nikkor it would be $150 used. You buy these for the bokeh and use them for portraits so sharpness doesn't matter. This focal lenght shot close to subject will produce great bokeh and portraits. No need for an inflated price Nikon for this one. All lenses from the 135/2.8 era are built to last. Get a cheap one -- JC Penney, "Imado" -- whatever.

8. 20-80mm 3.3-5.6. Dirt cheap Nikon kit lens. They made 1.7 million of them. I paid $30 for mine on the auction site. Built like crap. The gray version I own looks endearingly cheap. However, this lens is unique. It's a simple low element design (6 element, 6 group) design includes a resin aspherical hybrid element. It is sharp enough. But I still say that low element count lenses simply render images better. Great light walking around lens. Prices on these were inflated for a while because Ken Rockwell raved about it on his site but prices returned to normal.

I would also HIGHLY recomend the Yongnuo 685 speedlight ($100) for Nikon and the 622n transceiver ($40) paring. I never messed with OTC flash. It is a revelation. I put the flash on the little plastic stand that comes with the flash, set is somewhere in the room, point it usually to the ceiling. I'm in the TTL camp. It is liberating being able to shoot at any aperture or shutter speed and have perfect light. Keeping the flash off camera opens creative possiblities. Keeping the little transceiver in the hotshoe keeps the camera from being bulky and awkward and blinding the subject. OTC enables candid photos with a flash. Often they doen't even know a flash fired. (A lot of photographers like Godox but I've been happy with this Yonghuo pairing...)
 
I have not yet received my CF card in the mail, or I would have tried out the D700 by now.
 
Archiver said:
@NickTrop preaching the gospel of the secondhand full frame DSLR, hahaha!
Click to expand...

Yes. You can't beat full-frame. Period. Dynamic range, low noise levels, but most important to me is the image plane size so your photos don't look like they were take with a cell phone and have a better dimensional quality like 35mm film. Even if smaller sensors catch-up in other technical areas, ain't nothing you can do about the size of the imaging plane. I don't care how "retro rangefinder-like" the form factors of others are. And DSLRs have been around long enough for an ample supply of good ones on the used market at reasonable prices thanks to the rapid upgrade cycle. Camera companies need to keep selling cameras so they introduce things like "mirrorless" variations, folks more than happy to ditch their perfectly good cameras for stuff that's new and shiny and does the same thing.

And going Nikon is a great choice. Really, the only sensible choice as they have mass produced great lenses primes, zooms in any imaginable focal length for decades along with 3rd-party manufacturers in the same mount. Backwards compatibility from Ai to present day. Where can you get a perfectly good full-frame lens for $30-40? I have 12 F-mount lenses. Mostly Nikkor but paid less than $100 for 1/2 of them and half of those less than $50.

I would have gone D600 or D610 if I was Raid to future proof your camera but the D700 is also a heckuva camera that go for 2-300 on eBay.
 
I can always add another DSLR one day if the D700 dies, Nick. The newer Nikon DSLR cameras can still be bought at low prices when used.
My large collection of Canon FD lenses does not help me here. Not even a Canon DSLR would have been useful with the FD lenses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom