chris91387
Well-known
i hope this post is okay since it is not RF related. if i've broken a rule then please remove and accept my apologies.
i guess i could ask this question over at nikonians but i value the opinions of my comrades over here more than over there.
question:
i have a D80 which i use once in a while and really want an AF 80-200. i use my old 80-200 F4 MF (which i LOVE) but i'd like to have AF and matrix metering abilities. the 70-200 2.8 with VR sounds amazing...but way more than i want to spend. so i'm considering the new 80-200 2.8 which runs about a grand. but it looks like there's an older version that has one focus ring (new one has 2) which is considerably less money.
can anyone enlighten me about either model? i'm pretty much just shooting family pictures and school functions.
here's a picture of the older model.
thanks!
- chris
i guess i could ask this question over at nikonians but i value the opinions of my comrades over here more than over there.
question:
i have a D80 which i use once in a while and really want an AF 80-200. i use my old 80-200 F4 MF (which i LOVE) but i'd like to have AF and matrix metering abilities. the 70-200 2.8 with VR sounds amazing...but way more than i want to spend. so i'm considering the new 80-200 2.8 which runs about a grand. but it looks like there's an older version that has one focus ring (new one has 2) which is considerably less money.
can anyone enlighten me about either model? i'm pretty much just shooting family pictures and school functions.
here's a picture of the older model.
thanks!
- chris
Attachments
peterm1
Veteran
The older model is a lovely lens. It has superb build quality and just as good optical quality. Some prefer it to the later lens because of its robust build but it is heavy. I have handled a number of them and am possibly in the market for one myself so I have researched them closely. I have read enough about them to know they are good - better than good. I cannot really speak for the later lens as I have not explored them and while I am sure they are excellent too, they are much more expensive.
I like this fellows reviews and here is his on the D version of the 80-200.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/80200.htm
The one pictured in the above linked page has a tripod mount - the earlier versions did not have this.
If you really want to save $ then you could consider the early AF version of the 70-210mm f4. I have been considering this one too as an alternative to the more expensive and faster 80-200 f2.8. The only downside is that it is said that some suffer from focus errors that can affect picture quality at some settings. Most people claim it to be excellent, however.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70210f4.htm
I must be honest and admit that I have a soft spot for older Nikon glass. Almost without exception it is miles cheaper than the latest equivalent versions and for all practical purposes just as good - maybe the AF is a bit slower thats all.
For my type of photography, this does not matter a toss. These older 80-200s were used a lot by fashion photographers shooting catwalk models. And from your description I would say that the same applies to you as to me - family shots and school function photos do not require absolute state of the art camera gear or the ability to focus virtually instantaneously. (If you were shooting sports events however, I might be inclined to advise otherwise.)
I like this fellows reviews and here is his on the D version of the 80-200.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/80200.htm
The one pictured in the above linked page has a tripod mount - the earlier versions did not have this.
If you really want to save $ then you could consider the early AF version of the 70-210mm f4. I have been considering this one too as an alternative to the more expensive and faster 80-200 f2.8. The only downside is that it is said that some suffer from focus errors that can affect picture quality at some settings. Most people claim it to be excellent, however.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70210f4.htm
I must be honest and admit that I have a soft spot for older Nikon glass. Almost without exception it is miles cheaper than the latest equivalent versions and for all practical purposes just as good - maybe the AF is a bit slower thats all.
For my type of photography, this does not matter a toss. These older 80-200s were used a lot by fashion photographers shooting catwalk models. And from your description I would say that the same applies to you as to me - family shots and school function photos do not require absolute state of the art camera gear or the ability to focus virtually instantaneously. (If you were shooting sports events however, I might be inclined to advise otherwise.)
Last edited:
wray
Well-known
If you want the lowdown on the lenses, go to Bjørn Rorslett's site. Here is the page where he discusses the 80-200s:http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html. Personally if I were in the market for an 80-200 I would go for the newest one as it has an afs motor and focuses much quicker than the others.
myoptic3
Well-known
What you want is the push-pull 80 200 2.8 AF D lens. You can usually find them for around $500. Best to get the hood too, as the front glass is huge. These things are big and heavy, but the optics are as good as prime lenses. K.E.H. would be a logical place to look, and I highly recommend them. The 70 210 lens is a lot lighter and smaller, but you really can't compare the optics. Here's two shots taken w/ the one (80-200) I used to own. If you are at an event this lens will bring things in close very nicely, especially as it would be a 120-300 on your D80. It also makes a good portrait lens, but you will have to soften things up in Photoshop because even wide open it is blazingly sharp.
Attachments
Last edited:
wray
Well-known
I used to own the two ring non-afs version of this lens. Here's a shot with it - set at 100mm, handheld at 1/25 second at f2.8 on my old D80:
Rafael
Mandlerian
The one-touch (push-pull) 80-200 is, as has been stated, very good optically. But the AF is a bit slow. There are two more recent versions of the 80-200. An AFS version that has been discontinued and the non-AFS version with the tripod collar (still current even though it was released prior to the AFS version). For family pictures, the one-touch version will be more than adequate. If you plan to shoot any sports or action, you might want to consider one of the newer models.
P
PhotoJim
Guest
I have the non-D AF version of this lens. I really like it. It's big and heavy (they all are) but optically it's superb.
The autofocus speed is not that fast (it is decent with high-end Nikons like the F100 and F5 though).
However, as a one-touch zoom it's really convenient to use with manual Nikons. If you ever shoot manually, this is the best 80-200/2.8 to get, I think.
The autofocus speed is not that fast (it is decent with high-end Nikons like the F100 and F5 though).
However, as a one-touch zoom it's really convenient to use with manual Nikons. If you ever shoot manually, this is the best 80-200/2.8 to get, I think.
chris91387
Well-known
thanks, everyone. i guess i'll grab a one-touch version from KEH and try it out for a day or 2 - can always return and get the newer model.
i'm sure it'll be more than fine for what few things i'd shoot with it.
thanks agian.
chris
i'm sure it'll be more than fine for what few things i'd shoot with it.
thanks agian.
chris
Ade-oh
Well-known
Just to chime in, I had the non-D AF version of this lens (until some b*stard stole it) and it is absolutely superb optically. It doesn't have a built in focusing motor but it was quick enough on my F5 for any sport or action photography I was doing.
IGMeanwell
Well-known
I have used the D version of the 80-200 and found it very sharp ... AF was quick on the D80 for tracking a C130 through a fly-by and a landing
That being said, I borrowed it but found it too big on the D80 to end up purchasing it. Instead I went with the Sigma 50-150 2.8 (the 1st version as the 2nd version wasn't even announced at that point).... personally its a lot smaller, AF is quicker and silent, the build quality is pretty close to the 80-200 (honestly that is built for battle)
If you don't mind size, go ahead with the older 80-200, but if you want something a little less imposing and you don't need the extra 50mm on the long end.... think about the 50-150
That being said, I borrowed it but found it too big on the D80 to end up purchasing it. Instead I went with the Sigma 50-150 2.8 (the 1st version as the 2nd version wasn't even announced at that point).... personally its a lot smaller, AF is quicker and silent, the build quality is pretty close to the 80-200 (honestly that is built for battle)
If you don't mind size, go ahead with the older 80-200, but if you want something a little less imposing and you don't need the extra 50mm on the long end.... think about the 50-150