Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 purchase.........Good idea? (Page 4): It a super lens I used it on my d300 for years I don't know what price on the lens but I got mine for 600.00 9 years ago so go...

carl hervol Loc: jacksonville florida

It a super lens I used it on my d300 for years I don't know what price on the lens but I got mine for 600.00 9 years ago so go from that.

whitewolfowner

therwol wrote:

Just throwing in the fact that the older manual focus 70-200 F/4 is also an excellent performer from another era, and I paid somewhere around $120 for one that I gave to my son in-law to use on his Nikon FA (He still shoots film) Of course, it would make absolutely no sense to use such a lens for action pictures on a D500.

Personally, I try to stay away from zooms without VR on my D810. I just want it there when I need it, not all of the time.

I see no reason why not; I've used that lens for years to shoot sports and the only problem I had was that I wished it was faster for low light. Otherwise a perfectly good lens. And who needs VR on a 70-210 lens? Not me.

therwol Loc: USA

whitewolfowner wrote:

I see no reason why not; I've used that lens for years to shoot sports and the only problem I had was that I wished it was faster for low light. Otherwise a perfectly good lens. And who needs VR on a 70-210 lens? Not me.

I'll give it one thing (the old manual focus 70-200 f/4), outside of the excellent optical performance I mentioned. It's lightweight compared with these beasts that most use now. As for VR, that's a matter of personal preference. It does work to some degree under some circumstances. I replaced my old 28-105 with the current 24-120 f/4 primarily because of the VR. I honestly think that the older lens is as sharp or sharper and has much less distortion, so there was a trade off.

whitewolfowner

therwol wrote:

I'll give it one thing (the old manual focus 70-200 f/4), outside of the excellent optical performance I mentioned. It's lightweight compared with these beasts that most use now. As for VR, that's a matter of personal preference. It does work to some degree under some circumstances. I replaced my old 28-105 with the current 24-120 f/4 primarily because of the VR. I honestly think that the older lens is as sharp or sharper and has much less distortion, so there was a trade off.

I was referring to the AF model. The optics on the 70-210 f4.0 AF lens are a lot better than the manual model.

Nikonman44

whitewolfowner wrote:

I see no reason why not; I've used that lens for years to shoot sports and the only problem I had was that I wished it was faster for low light. Otherwise a perfectly good lens. And who needs VR on a 70-210 lens? Not me.

VR has a purpose and I seem to find it helps at times. When you are working without a tripod or mono-pod I am sure certain shots I have made have benefited from its use.