Ugly Hedgehog® - Photography Forum
Nikon 80-200 and 70-200 lenses
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Page: 1 2 3 next>>
Mar 14, 2019 18:08:55   #
juan_uy (a regular here)
 
For some time I have had the Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR II in my wish list (or more of a dream list).

Recently I have discovered the older 80-200 models and I have seen that with those, there are these options (that I could get):
1 - AF 80-200mm f/2.8D ED
2 - AF-S 80-200mm f:2.8d
3 - AF-S 70-200mm f:2.8g ED VR II

The pros and cons that I already have are:
- No VR on options 1 and 2
- No AF-S on option 1
- Significant price difference making #3 around double the price of #1 and almost that much of #2
- Lenses 1 and 2 seem sturdier (more metal construction) but also heavier than 3

The questions that I have are:
- I am crazy on even considering the older 80-200 lenses?
- Is the focusing motor a plus if being used with D7200? I know the AF will focus with my camera, my question is, is the AF-S faster or more precise than the AF?
- Is VR a must for this focal length?

Use would be almost everything
Mainly portraits and landscape (details), but also planning to use it for moving subjects and a bit of macro.

Any answers and or comments are more than welcomed!

| Reply
Mar 14, 2019 18:38:59   #
Screamin Scott (a regular here)
 
If the AFS goes out on the 80-200, Nikon no longer fixes that lens. I have the one currently still in production, the 80-200 AD D-ED

| Reply
Mar 14, 2019 19:57:21   #
MT Shooter
 
juan_uy wrote:
For some time I have had the Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR II in my wish list (or more of a dream list).

Recently I have discovered the older 80-200 models and I have seen that with those, there are these options (that I could get):
1 - AF 80-200mm f/2.8D ED
2 - AF-S 80-200mm f:2.8d
3 - AF-S 70-200mm f:2.8g ED VR II

The pros and cons that I already have are:
- No VR on options 1 and 2
- No AF-S on option 1
- Significant price difference making #3 around double the price of #1 and almost that much of #2
- Lenses 1 and 2 seem sturdier (more metal construction) but also heavier than 3

The questions that I have are:
- I am crazy on even considering the older 80-200 lenses?
- Is the focusing motor a plus if being used with D7200? I know the AF will focus with my camera, my question is, is the AF-S faster or more precise than the AF?
- Is VR a must for this focal length?

Use would be almost everything
Mainly portraits and landscape (details), but also planning to use it for moving subjects and a bit of macro.

Any answers and or comments are more than welcomed!
For some time I have had the Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR I... (show quote)


All are quite sharp lenses, The AF 80-200mm F2.8D is legendary and thats why Nikon still makes it. It does focus noticeable slower than either of the AF-S models if thats an issue. If you want AF-S I suggest either the 70-200mm VR or VR II models for the focusing speed and stabilization.

| Reply
Mar 15, 2019 06:29:42   #
| Reply
Mar 15, 2019 08:06:11   #
sv3noKin51E
 
Juan, no, you aren't crazy, you just have GAS:). We have many older lenses we love to play with; those you list are fine. Many of the older glass was simply great and can't be topped. As for what ifs, Some older AFs are slow, noisy, etc, and VR isn't on the lens, or doesn't work; in those cases you'll simply have to shoot manually. I like to shoot manually as much as with AF and VR. The great thing about older lenses, the build quality (glass and body) is difficult to manufacture in a lens. Some of them are called tanks, because they're built so heavy, made mostly of metal, not plastic. If you get a chance, Ken Rockwell's site covers almost all lenses (old and new) made for Nikon, which are good, which are so-so, and shows examples of his style/work. Whatever one thinks of Ken's writing style, his site encompass a lot of territory on all things Nikon. Hope this helped, happy shooting. sv

| Reply
Mar 15, 2019 08:17:09   #
ABJanes
 
juan_uy wrote:
For some time I have had the Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR II in my wish list (or more of a dream list).

Recently I have discovered the older 80-200 models and I have seen that with those, there are these options (that I could get):
1 - AF 80-200mm f/2.8D ED
2 - AF-S 80-200mm f:2.8d
3 - AF-S 70-200mm f:2.8g ED VR II

The pros and cons that I already have are:
- No VR on options 1 and 2
- No AF-S on option 1
- Significant price difference making #3 around double the price of #1 and almost that much of #2
- Lenses 1 and 2 seem sturdier (more metal construction) but also heavier than 3

The questions that I have are:
- I am crazy on even considering the older 80-200 lenses?
- Is the focusing motor a plus if being used with D7200? I know the AF will focus with my camera, my question is, is the AF-S faster or more precise than the AF?
- Is VR a must for this focal length?

Use would be almost everything
Mainly portraits and landscape (details), but also planning to use it for moving subjects and a bit of macro.

Any answers and or comments are more than welcomed!
For some time I have had the Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR I... (show quote)



I have the same GAS for the 70-200 f/2.8. I hear good things about the Sigma and a new version has been recently introduced.

| Reply
Mar 15, 2019 08:50:47   #
juan_uy (a regular here)
 
Screamin Scott wrote:
If the AFS goes out on the 80-200, Nikon no longer fixes that lens. I have the one currently still in production, the 80-200 AD D-ED


Thanks, that is important data that I wasn't aware of. Wouldn't have thought that Nikon wouldn't repair an older AF-S lens.

| Reply
Mar 15, 2019 08:52:47   #
juan_uy (a regular here)
 
MT Shooter wrote:
All are quite sharp lenses, The AF 80-200mm F2.8D is legendary and thats why Nikon still makes it. It does focus noticeable slower than either of the AF-S models if thats an issue. If you want AF-S I suggest either the 70-200mm VR or VR II models for the focusing speed and stabilization.


Thanks a lot for answering!
With your comment and Scott's, I think the AF-S 80-200 should be discarded.
Now I should meditate if I want the 80-200 or wait, some long time, until I can buy the 70-200

| Reply
Mar 15, 2019 08:56:14   #
juan_uy (a regular here)
 
sv3noKin51E wrote:
Juan, no, you aren't crazy, you just have GAS:). We have many older lenses we love to play with; those you list are fine. Many of the older glass was simply great and can't be topped. As for what ifs, Some older AFs are slow, noisy, etc, and VR isn't on the lens, or doesn't work; in those cases you'll simply have to shoot manually. I like to shoot manually as much as with AF and VR. The great thing about older lenses, the build quality (glass and body) is difficult to manufacture in a lens. Some of them are called tanks, because they're built so heavy, made mostly of metal, not plastic. If you get a chance, Ken Rockwell's site covers almost all lenses (old and new) made for Nikon, which are good, which are so-so, and shows examples of his style/work. Whatever one thinks of Ken's writing style, his site encompass a lot of territory on all things Nikon. Hope this helped, happy shooting. sv
Juan, no, you aren't crazy, you just have GAS:). ... (show quote)


Yes, I know Ken's site. And I agree that although some of his preachment should be taken with a pinch of salt, it is the more complete and exhaustive library of Nikon lenses that I have found; and I always visit his site for any lens that I am considering.
In this case, all seem good enough lenses for him (and I guess they are), but I was looking for more hands-on and field experience/comments. He does that part, but usually reviews are more technical than practical.

| Reply
Mar 15, 2019 08:56:57   #
Wrench
 
I’ve been eyeing that 80-200 as well. Found a used copy for under$500 and bought from Roberts. Unfortunately the lens didn’t communicate with my D7200. Wouldn’t focus nor recognize aperture when set and locked at f22(minimum). Called them and the authorized a return right away. Great company! I would stay away from the af-s version as it could be an expensive paperweight. Nikon still produces the two ring version new which I’m saving the needed penny’s for. You could consider the push pull but I have never used one and have no thought on. Don’t forget the Nikon 70-200 f4 which has vr unless you need a f2.8 lens.

Rick

| Reply
Mar 15, 2019 08:57:18   #
juan_uy (a regular here)
 
ABJanes wrote:
I have the same GAS for the 70-200 f/2.8. I hear good things about the Sigma and a new version has been recently introduced.


I will check Sigma, and probably Tamron also, but would prefer to stay with Nikon lenses if possible.
Thanks for your input

| Reply
Mar 15, 2019 08:59:28   #
Screamin Scott (a regular here)
 
Wrench wrote:
I’ve been eyeing that 80-200 as well. Found a used copy for under$500 and bought from Roberts. Unfortunately the lens didn’t communicate with my D7200. Wouldn’t focus nor recognize aperture when set and locked at f22(minimum). Called them and the authorized a return right away. Great company! I would stay away from the af-s version as it could be an expensive paperweight. Nikon still produces the two ring version new which I’m saving the needed penny’s for. You could consider the push pull but I have never used one and have no thought on. Don’t forget the Nikon 70-200 f4 which has vr unless you need a f2.8 lens.

Rick
I’ve been eyeing that 80-200 as well. Found a used... (show quote)


I have the two ring which I got from KEH several years back...Better than the push/pull IMHO.

| Reply
Mar 15, 2019 09:25:59   #
aflundi
 
juan_uy wrote:
For some time I have had the Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR II in my wish list (or more of a dream list).

Recently I have discovered the older 80-200 models and I have seen that with those, there are these options (that I could get):
1 - AF 80-200mm f/2.8D ED
2 - AF-S 80-200mm f:2.8d
3 - AF-S 70-200mm f:2.8g ED VR II

The pros and cons that I already have are:
- No VR on options 1 and 2
- No AF-S on option 1
- Significant price difference making #3 around double the price of #1 and almost that much of #2
- Lenses 1 and 2 seem sturdier (more metal construction) but also heavier than 3

The questions that I have are:
- I am crazy on even considering the older 80-200 lenses?
- Is the focusing motor a plus if being used with D7200? I know the AF will focus with my camera, my question is, is the AF-S faster or more precise than the AF?
- Is VR a must for this focal length?

Use would be almost everything
Mainly portraits and landscape (details), but also planning to use it for moving subjects and a bit of macro.

Any answers and or comments are more than welcomed!
For some time I have had the Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR I... (show quote)


I've had the 70-200/2.8G VRII for several years and love it. It's a first-rate lens that's never failed me.

I'd heard so many good things about the 80-200/2.8D ED 2-ring that I recently decided to pick one up to see for myself. It back-focused so badly that even with a fine-tune of -20 the focus plane was still behind the target, and on checking I found that to be a very common problem. I sent it to Nikon twice, but each time they said they had no way to adjust the problem. In the end, I've spent enough money on it to have bought a Tamron 70-200/2.8 G2, and it still back-focuses enough to make it unusable except by using a rather inconvenient trick. It's also slow focusing and noisy.

On the good side, my 80-200/2.8D makes a very nice image when I can get the focus right. On a D800/D810 it's pretty soft if you are pixel-peeping, but if you are looking at the image as a whole, it gives an impression of high contrast and sharpness. Though subjective, I think the bokeh is outstanding. I can see why it had a good reputation on lower pixel count cameras.

I've stayed away from the 80-200/2.8 AF-S since, as others have pointed out, the motor has a propensity to fail, and Nikon can no longer fix them.

It can be fun playing with old lenses, but the fact you are asking is I think an indication that you want a good practical lens. From your list, that's definitely the G VRII. The others are more risky and not in the same league.

| Reply
Mar 15, 2019 09:29:30   #
juan_uy (a regular here)
 
Wrench wrote:
I’ve been eyeing that 80-200 as well. Found a used copy for under$500 and bought from Roberts. Unfortunately the lens didn’t communicate with my D7200. Wouldn’t focus nor recognize aperture when set and locked at f22(minimum). Called them and the authorized a return right away. Great company! I would stay away from the af-s version as it could be an expensive paperweight. Nikon still produces the two ring version new which I’m saving the needed penny’s for. You could consider the push pull but I have never used one and have no thought on. Don’t forget the Nikon 70-200 f4 which has vr unless you need a f2.8 lens.

Rick
I’ve been eyeing that 80-200 as well. Found a used... (show quote)


Thanks Rick for your input.
Sadly used lenses where I live are scarce and very expensive (new ones also). I have discarded the push/pull one based on several reviews.
I want the f2.8, but I'll take your suggestion and don't rule out the f4 one yet :)

| Reply
Mar 15, 2019 09:36:15   #
juan_uy (a regular here)
 
aflundi wrote:
I've had the 70-200/2.8G VRII for several years and love it. It's a first-rate lens that's never failed me.

I'd heard so many good things about the 80-200/2.8D ED 2-ring that I recently decided to pick one up to see for myself. It back-focused so badly that even with a fine-tune of -20 the focus plane was still behind the target, and on checking I found that to be a very common problem. I sent it to Nikon twice, but each time they said they had no way to adjust the problem. In the end, I've spent enough money on it to have bought a Tamron 70-200/2.8 G2, and it still back-focuses enough to make it unusable except by using a rather inconvenient trick. It's also slow focusing and noisy.

On the good side, my 80-200/2.8D makes a very nice image when I can get the focus right. On a D800/D810 it's pretty soft if you are pixel-peeping, but if you are looking at the image as a whole, it gives an impression of high contrast and sharpness. Though subjective, I think the bokeh is outstanding. I can see why it had a good reputation on lower pixel count cameras.

I've stayed away from the 80-200/2.8 AF-S since, as others have pointed out, the motor has a propensity to fail, and Nikon can no longer fix them.

It can be fun playing with old lenses, but the fact you are asking is I think an indication that you want a good practical lens. From your list, that's definitely the G VRII. The others are more risky and not in the same league.
I've had the 70-200/2.8G VRII for several years an... (show quote)


Thanks aflundi!
I am very conscious of the overall quality of the G VRII, it would be THE lens to have. I was just trying to weigh if the cheaper options would be good enough for me (as I am no pro).
Your experience is very useful to keep in mind (I would hate that back-focusing issues, as I only use manual focus in very little situations).

| Reply
Page: 1 2 3 next>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2019 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.