Another "Should I buy this?" question re: Nikon 80-200mm f2.8D: After you stop laughing at the question, I'm sure many of you will say, "Yes!". And I WOULD like to have this lens. I...

kb6kgx Loc: Simi Valley, CA

After you stop laughing at the question, I'm sure many of you will say, "Yes!". And I WOULD like to have this lens. I have an opportunity to buy a "like new" lens for a really good price, BUT… and here's why I'm posting this silly question:

I already have the 70-300mm f4.5-5.6G (the one that retails for just under $500). I also have the 180mm f2.8. So, my question really is would I gain from getting the 80-200 since the 180 is right in the middle and the 70-300 does produce sharp enough images providing the focus is right.

Or should I just stick with what I have and be happy with that?

User ID

the 180 makes your puzzle a bit different than the usual. in your position, i'd skip the xtra purchase, unless the "good deal" price is really just pocket money for your situation, in which case i'd buy it and live with all three lenses to decide whether to ditch one later.

kb6kgx Loc: Simi Valley, CA

User ID wrote:

the 180 makes your puzzle a bit different than the usual. in your position, i'd skip the xtra purchase, unless the "good deal" price is really just pocket money for your situation, in which case i'd buy it and live with all three lenses to decide whether to ditch one later.

I believe the lens is being offered for $450 and is described as "like new". It'd be a local purchases so I COULD make a trip over to check it out. But, I'm leaning more towards NOT buying it only because the 180 is just such a fine lens and having a lens that gives me 200 is not significant.

I generally run with two bodies, one with the 70-300 and the other with a Sigma 17-50 f2.8. Where the 70-300 has issues is when the lighting is less than optimal. I have not yet had an opportunity to really put the 180 through its paces. What little I HAVE done with it, I've been rather amazed at just how good it is.

uhaas2009

I have the 70-300 VR version where the focus engine broke down and I payed about $190 on repair. They used a better focus engine.
80-200 is technical way smoother and quiet. Does it focus faster-I don’t know.
70-200 there I feel focus speed different vs 80-200, and 70-300. Since I programmed the 70-200 it’s a beast but I still like glass of the 70-300 and 80-200 better.
Good luck with your decision. It’s a good question

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

In my case I only buy a lens IF I need it for my photography. The 180 f2.8 lens is a fine lens and if you have the VR version of the 70-300 you should be fine.
The 80-200 f2.8 is a fine lens but you do not want to duplicate focal lengths. I would say YES go for it if you did not have the lenses you now own.

nimbushopper Loc: Tampa, FL

I have the same 70-300 FX lens and picked up the 80-200 f2.8 years ago because I got it for a great bargain. Thing is, the 80-200 doesn't have VR, and is much heavier than the 70-300. Other than the fast f2.8 constant aperture the picture quality of both lenses is excellent. So I use the 70-300 much more than the 80-200.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

What do you need it for? An 80-200 f/2.8 lens is great for event shooting indoors and sports, again especially in indoor / lower light. But, as an f/2.8 lens with 'large' glass, it's also going to be larger and heavier than your 70-300. Except for being better in lower light, it overlaps completely with your current lens, as well as not having the VR-support of a more modern and expensive 70-200 models. If you're not into these shooting situations, you'll likely favor the lighter options with more focal length when deciding what lens to bring. Finally, the D lens is not upwardly compatible with Nikon's FTZ adapter and mirrorless options. So, longer term, this lens is not a longer term option.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

kb6kgx wrote:

After you stop laughing at the question, I'm sure ... (show quote)

Your presentation of the puzzle to us is not really complete. We don't know what camera(s) you have or what you shoot. We do know that you are Interested in moderate telephoto focal lengths.

I have the 180mm lens. It is pretty remarkable. Light, agile, and fast. You mention that you shoot in at least some limited light situations, so apparently, the extra 2 stops of the 80-200 are registering somewhere in your mind. That lens, though, is going to be a significantly larger and heavier way to get to 200mm (or 180 mm). Is that going to be a big deal for you? And a newer 70-200 with VR would be a bigger impact.

Having the flexibility to zoom around 180mm at f/2.8 might be a big advantage. Might not. You have to decide that. And whether it's worth the cost in weight and lost agility. Have you thought about a shorter zoom, like the 24-120mm f/4? I bought one a few years ago, almost on a whim, and I love it, both for DX and FX.

W5LEP

colt4x5 Loc: Central Connecticut

Can't advise you on what to do, but I can share my experience –– I sold my 180 2.8 and bought a really nice 80-200 2.8 D (two-touch, with the separate zoom ring) ... and I miss the 180. I rarely carry the 80-200 because of its bulk and weight. I plan to swap back someday.

n4jee Loc: New Bern, NC

The 20-200 f2.8 is a fine lens. I had an older slide to zoom model that I used on an F5 at weddings.
Back in the film days a fast lens was a big advantage for both better visibility in the viewfinder and for use with the slower film speeds. I now have one lens, a 24-240 f3.5-6.3. In today's digital world you can bump the ISO from 100 to 800 gaining 3 stops, and not notice a difference. If there is a little noise you can remove it in post processing.
Enjoy your 70-300 and bump up your ISO when needed. Pass on the 80-200.

jaymatt Loc: Alexandria, Indiana

Do you rally need it? That’s the question.

Bridges Loc: Memphis, Charleston SC, now Nazareth PA

kb6kgx wrote:

After you stop laughing at the question, I'm sure ... (show quote)

I have several lenses in that range including two 70-200 2.8. I would still like to have one of the older 2.8 lenses but only if it were the push-pull style. You can do some very creative zooming during extended shutter speeds with one of those lenses. I would tend to say buy it if that is the case.

george19

larryepage wrote:

Your presentation of the puzzle to us is not reall... (show quote)

Exactly. Are you using a DX camera and hope to be doing FF? I believe this is a FF lens, but if you are using DX now you’ll be unnecessarily duplicating coverage.

And to CHG_CANON’s point, you won’t get autofocus with a Z mount, should you drift that way.

kb6kgx Loc: Simi Valley, CA

camerapapi wrote:

In my case I only buy a lens IF I need it for my photography. The 180 f2.8 lens is a fine lens and if you have the VR version of the 70-300 you should be fine.
The 80-200 f2.8 is a fine lens but you do not want to duplicate focal lengths. I would say YES go for it if you did not have the lenses you now own.

The 70-300 IS the VR version.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

kb6kgx wrote:

After you stop laughing at the question, I'm sure ... (show quote)

Your money, your decision...you want it don't you. You opinion is the only one that counts.