Nikon 80-200 f4 ais vs other lenses

[gabrielcik]

Hi,

I know that this Nikon lens is considered to be probably the best manual focus lens of this range.

I would like to know if it is better (or at least not worst) than more modern AF lenses like Nikon 55-200 or Tamron 70-300 f4-56 etc... (I talk about quality of photos, sharpness...).

So far i have got some Adaptall Tamron (80-200 and 35-135)...

My cameras are Nikon d200 and Nikon FM.

 

[rbsinto]

I've got a zoom- Nikkor 80~200 2.8 ED AIS manual focus lens, and it is no slouch. Sharp as a tack even wide open, it's main downside is that it weighs a ton and is enormous (using 95mm filters).
Image-wise, I'd stack it up against the zoom-Nikkor 80~200 f4 manual focus, or any modern zoom.

 

[huddy]

The AI 80-200 f/4.5 AI with rear light baffles is actually held in higher esteem than the later f/4 AI-S model for performance. Sharpness is great on my D700. Colors and everything else look good. Pretty flare resistant. Pair it with a 25-50 f/4 or 28-50 f/3.5 and you have a great two zoom kit.

 

[sparrow6224]

Just for the record the best 80-200 I've ever used, by a mile, is the Canon f/4 L version. It's astounding. I'm a Nikon man generally but I held on to a ragged set of Canon stuff for a long time just for this lens.

The Minolta MD Zoom-Rokkor 70-210mm f/4 is also as good as the Nikon. I too found the 80-200/4.5 last Ai version (different formula and with that baffle on the back) to be best of the Nikon manual focus f/4 zooms. I've never had any of the f/2.8s.

 

[Fraser]

Best Nikon 80-200 (or it maybe 70-210) f4 af is the best one I've used quite rare for such a cheap lens to be constant f4, had a 70-210 f4.5 af for a bit that was a great lens on D200 and would fit easy in a pocket. Never tried the manual focus ones. The f4 af one would be good on both cameras as the manual focus is ok, when you feel the quality of the early nikon af lenses they are miles ahead of the newer consumer glass.

 

[NickTrop]

I JUST bit on this lens mere moments ago. Got a BGN grade one from KEH for $59, free ship. It's the supposedly more sought after earlier 4.5 version that has the baffle around the rear element. Didn't break the bank. I will concede I got suckered by one of "The Angry Photographer's" YouTube video rants claim this lens is sex, sugar, the cat's azz, the color rendion!, the micontrast!, the low element count! (I will never criticize any lady who buys crap on QVC ever again.) I'm not much of a zoom guy, but this range was a hole in my kit, so for the price, what the heck? This was an $1800 pro lens (adjusted for inflation) in its day. And I do prefer the rendering of the old Nikons though I generally only go as far back as AF-D (35/2, 50/1.4 etc...)

Of course, because I have this GAS sickness I can't shake, I spent the next 1/2-hour after hitting "buy" reading anything and everything online about my new toy that should arrive in the mail this week (I'm not on the spectrum, I'm not on the spectrum...).

And whaddya know -- an old RFF thread!

BUMP!

 

[x-ray]

The AI 80-200 f/4.5 AI with rear light baffles is actually held in higher esteem than the later f/4 AI-S model for performance. Sharpness is great on my D700. Colors and everything else look good. Pretty flare resistant. Pair it with a 25-50 f/4 or 28-50 f/3.5 and you have a great two zoom kit.

I understand this to be true but have not used the 4.5 version with the baffle. I have the earlier version without the baffle and find it to be an amazing lens. I have the 70-200 f2.8 VR II, the one prior to the current one, and while a touch behind the VRII it's what I would call a good inexpensive alternative with performance approaching the VRII. For daily use in normal shooting conditions I'd say you'll never know the difference. It is an amazingly sharp lens on my D800.

I agree it pairs very well with the 25-50 f4. I own this lens as well and it too is in the same class as prime lenses of that generation.

 

[Robert Lai]

I used to own the 80-200 AIS. A really great lens image-wise, it has no tripod mount, and it's bulky. When I was using it, I always felt that it was going to wrench the lens mount out of square with the film plane.

I have the 70-180 f/4.5 to 5.6 AF-D Micro Nikkor instead. That has a nice tripod mount, and focuses into the macro range. Takes not too big 62mm filters also. Requires a close up doublet (Nikon 6T) to get to 1:1 (which I also have, but rarely use).

 

[Corran]

The 80-200mm f/4.5 AI is a GREAT lens. However, the issue with it, and all MF telephotos, will simply be the accuracy and efficacy of your focus. I have blown through a 36-shot roll on my motorized F2 shooting action with this lens and as you might expect, 50% or more are out of focus, even if just slightly, while trying to track focus on a moving subject. So for your digital camera, a typical cheap modern zoom will likely be way sharper just because of AF in that situation (if you know how to use your AF system). If you are shooting static subjects, then it won't matter as much.

Considering the f/4.5 AI can be had for under $100, it is certainly a great option for your film camera.

 

[raid]

Just for the record the best 80-200 I've ever used, by a mile, is the Canon f/4 L version. It's astounding. I'm a Nikon man generally but I held on to a ragged set of Canon stuff for a long time just for this lens.

The Minolta MD Zoom-Rokkor 70-210mm f/4 is also as good as the Nikon. I too found the 80-200/4.5 last Ai version (different formula and with that baffle on the back) to be best of the Nikon manual focus f/4 zooms. I've never had any of the f/2.8s.

I have the acclaimed Nikkor 80-200/4.5 and the Canon 80-200/4L. The Angenieux 70-210/3.5 is better than both lenses mentioned.