Does anyone here have any experience with the different generations of the Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 lens? I'm looking for a fast (f/2.8) telephoto, and the 80-200mm seems to be extremely well-regarded, but there have been a couple of different versions over the years, and I'm not sure which is the "best" from a price/performance standpoint.

The first generation is manual-focus AI-S, so I'm not interested in that one. Then there's the plain ED version, the first AF-D version, and the current-production AF-D version that comes with a tripod collar and a faster autofocus. There's also an AF-S version that's no longer in production, which I think has an even faster autofocus compared to the AF-D (along with being larger/heavier).

The current-production AF-D can be had for about $825 new or about $700-750 on eBay, but I'm seeing a lot of the older "plain ED" and AF-D ones on eBay for $450-600. Is the tripod collar and faster autofocus on the current-production AF-D version worth the extra money? The AF-S lenses seem to go for about $900-1100 used.

(Then there's also the new 70-200mm F/2.8 with Vibration Reduction, but that's a $1625 lens, so I haven't decided if that one's even in the running or not.)

Thanks for any experiences/suggestions.

 

I'm a pretty avid shutterbug. You may wish to consider posting this on the forums at dpreview.com, etc. The people there have been very helpful to me in the past.

 

I'll do that too, but I'm hoping to get suggestions from the posters I'm familiar with here a well. The times I've browsed through dpreview, it's seemed to me that a lot of the posters there are hung on measurements/specifications, and I'm afraid that I'll get a lot of bias toward the AF-S or 70-200mm VR lenses just because they're newer/shiner or a smidgen faster to autofocus, and not necessarily because they're better lenses for the money.

I'm glad you reminded me of dpreview, though. I'll browse through there while I'm awaiting responses here - I'll just remember to take the reviews with a grain of salt, since I don't know any of the posters there.

 

Happy to help out in some small way. If you had a question about the Fuji F30/F31d, or needed underwater photo advice then I could really help you ... but my expertise does not extend to Nikon lenses. The one thing that I'd look for is "in the lens" stabilization on a lens that long. It will be faster and have a higher quality than a similar system that's only in the body. But you know your intended application and we don't so gosh only knows what best suits your needs.

The forums at dpreivew are like anywhere else - there will be at least several people there who are truly very knowledgeable and willing to help you out.

Jeff

 

Yep - good points. Unfortunately, the "in the lens" versus "in the body" image stabilization isn't really an issue for Nikon owners, since none of the Nikon bodies have stabilization built-in. Kind of a bummer, because it means that we have to keep paying for the VR feature with each new lens if we want it.

I already have the Nikon 18-200mm VR model, and it's a great "walking around" lens, but I'm wanting something a little bit faster for two reasons. One, to better capture sports/action shots without a flash, and also because I really love the way that the background just melts away and the subject really "pops" when shooting with a large aperture.

Unfortunately, the only really "fast" lens I have right now is my 50mm f/1.8, and that's not very useful unless I can get fairly close to the subject. The 18-200mm VR lens goes from f/3.5 to f/5.6 pretty quickly as you zoom in. In fact, I think the maximum aperture by the time it gets to 80mm is about 5.4, so the 80-200mm f/2.8 would be basically two full stops faster in the range it covers.

I'd be willing to live without the VR in an f/2.8 lens, with the hopes that the larger aperture would allow fast-enough shutter speeds that camera shake wouldn't be too much of an issue. I do see myself occasionally using a monopod/tripod with the 80-200mm lens though, just because of the size/weight.

I'm strictly in the "advanced amateur" camp, so I don't have to worry about losing a paycheck if I miss a shot. As such, I really suspect the AF-S and its faster autofocus would likely be overkill for me.

I'm also still getting as much benefit at this point from improving my technique as I am from upgrading my equipment. In fact, I'm in a position to get some more good glass because I recently talked myself out of upgrading my D50 body to the new D300. The $1800 that I'm not spending on a new body is the only reason I'm even considering the 70-200mm VR as an option.

I'm really thinking that an older AF-D 80-200mm will probably suit me just fine - I'm just curious to find out if anyone's used both the older -D and the newer -D or -S and thinks that either of those would be a no-brainer for the extra money.

 

I have the ED version to go on my D70...it is a definite must-have lens. Bought mine from someone on Nikonians for about $650 IIRC.

 

You may want to PM Jimz68 as he has the older version (not sure which one though) of the 80-200 f/2.8 and he just got the the new 70-200 f/2.8 VR lens. He's use case is obviously shooting at the race track. I personally have the new 70-200 and can tell you about it, but I don't know anything about the older models.

Everybody's friend Ken Rockwell has his opinions on the lens if you haven't read it already. He was a great resource when I was researching a new vs. used 300mm f/2.8 lens. YMMV.

 

I have had 2 different models of the nikon 70-200mm lens. Acutally, one was an 80-200, it did have the tripod collar attached to the body. The current lens I have is the 70-200mm 2.8 vr.

I have worked in the photography industry for over 10 years, and spent a good portion of that as a photographer in the portrait market. One thing that I have found is to spend money on the lenses, you will be upgrading bodies as time progresses, but if you purchase great glass, you won't be spending the money to upgrade that.

Now as to the vr aspects of that lens - traditional rule of thumb for handholding a lens is 1/focal length - so a 50mm lens could be hand held for 1/50th of a second. This becomes an issue when you are using a 200mm lens because this rule then says 1/200th of a second - anything slower and to be sharp you should be on a tripod.

However, with the vr - I have successfully hand held the 70-200 mm at a zoom of 200mm for 1/15th of a second and got great results.

 

Thanks for the inputs so far. I think I've narrowed it down to three choices - the newer "two-ring" version of the 80-200mm AF-D, the AF-S version of the 80-200mm, or the 70-200m VR.

For the 80-200mm, I can justify the extra $200-300 on the used market for the two-ring AF-D or AF-S compared to the older "push/pull" version of the AF-D, in order to get the tripod collar and faster autofocusing.

I'm still deciding whether the 70-200mm VR is worth $800 more *to me*. I know what you mean about the VR being great for handheld shots - I really love it on my 18-200mm VR, since that's kind of a "do everything" walkaround lens, and I'm shooting it handheld almost all the time.

But since a bigger/heavier f/2.8 telephoto is more of a special-purpose "put it on when I need it" lens, I think I'd be okay with resigning myself to using a tripod for landscape/still-life work at slower than 1/200th of a second. For moving subjects, I'll be shooting much faster than 1/200th anyway.

EDIT - Well, the choice just got a little more difficult. I guess the 70-200mm VR has been on the market longer than I thought. I originally thought that if I wanted the VR, I would have to spend the $1625 to get a new one. Turns out, there are actually quite a few on the used market going for as low as $1100-1200 in excellent shape, which means that it's only a few hundred more than a new "two-ring" 80-200mm AF-D or a used 80-200mm AF-S

 

*cough* disgruntled D3 owners perhaps? *cough*

 

Funny, I'm just editing some D3 and 70-200/2.8 VR shots right now. Yeah, there's some vignetting and a bit of softness in the corners that you don't see with a smaller sensor but it's not at all bad for the sorts of things you'd actually use a 70-200 for, IMO, as opposed to doing the dpreview forum poster type thing and shooting a newspaper taped to the wall. It's probably true, though, the lens was optimized for DX format even if it's not, obviously, a DX lens.

 

 

I have the 70-200 2.8 VR and compared to my non prime lenses, its the best lens I have. (12-24, 17-55, 17-50, 18-200)
Sharp as a Tack, Quick, VR is great as mentioned above, blows the 18-200 away.

Little exposure to a 80-200, when I made this choice the VR was key given my plans to shoot hand held.

For me it would be a no brainier to get the 70-200 2.8 VR assuming I wasn't getting a D3 anytime soon.

Now I have heard some issues with the D3 too but I have also heard of problems with the D3 and several lenses, something tells me Nikon will be coming out with new glass to address those issues.

 

It's a fairly small thing but the removable foot on the 70-200 tripod collar is pretty cool, too.

 

Mark, were you reviewing people photos or motorsport photos taken with this lens? I ask because the soft corners would look pleasing if taking photos of my family, but I have concerns with motorsports photos. I'll never be photographing a newspaper with this lens, so that doesn't concern me much.

Thanks emsjr, I've already installed the firmware update, but keep in mind it's only a band-aid fix for jpg files and doesn't fix the soft corners. Vignetting is a simple 5 second fix in ACR, so no issue there.

(back on topic, sorry) +1, I really like this when I'm handholding the lens to have the foot removed. Yet when attached, it's rock solid.

Scott, no matter which lens you get, you will be very happy with the results. Portraits look fantastic with this lens. All of the motorsport photos I've taken previously were with the VR lens (and sometimes with a 1.7xTCII added). Let us know when you get you new lens.

 

It was Dragon stuff so both, sort of. I think for most of what you would probably use a 70-200 for the softness isn't noticeable because the corners are usually OOF anyway. Landscape shots, yeah, it probably would be bothersome. Bjorn Rorslett says it's worst at long focal lengths, distant focus, and doesn't go away even stopped down very far. I can't say I've shot with it that way so I haven't noticed. A landscape shooter would use it differently than a PJ/sports/portrait shooter.

Theres a SportsShooter thread about it here.