therwol Loc: USA

Are you talking about the 80-200 AIs manual focus lens? I bought one of those from a source in Japan on eBay for around $125. It's as sharp as a tack. Quite amazing considering how long ago it was made. The lens I got showed absolutely no signs of wear, even the slightest bit of scuffing on the metal lens mount. My son in law who still shoots a lot of film is using it on the Nikon FA I also gave him. I think that the lack of autofocus would be a drawback for many. but otherwise it's an excellent lens.

JeffDavidson Loc: Originally Detroit Now Los Angeles

Weather sealing would be a definite consideration. I happen to have the 70-200mm F2.8 with VR and love it. Very sharp, and, considering that I do not have a steady hand, I do pretty good and terrific with a tripod (that is, my ability to use the lens).

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

I shoot with Canon gear, not Nikon... but among my most used lenses for sports (incl. a lot of equestrian) are 70-200mm.

I have two of them.... an f2.8 with image stabilization (about 15 years) and an f4 with image stabilization (bought more recently). A couple years ago I bought the f4 lens as a backup, since this has been one of my most frequently used lenses. But I find I now use it more often than the f2.8. It's approx. 1/3 smaller, lighter and I was rarely shooting with the f2.8 lens wide open, anyway, so the f4 is no problem. I mostly only get the f2.8 out for low light shooting now... and I suppose it serves as a backup to the f4 lens!

Two things:

1. 200mm really isn't long enough a lot of the time for sports, even on the APS-C (i.e., DX) cameras I use. Especially since you are using a full frame FX camera, I hope you have a 300mm or 400mm in your kit, too! I use the 70-200mm for the closer sports action and a second camera with either a 300mm prime (sometimes with 1.4X teleconverter added) or a 100-400mm zoom on it, switching to them for the more distant action.

2. With both lenses, as well four or five others with it, I leave image stabilization on all the time. With the 70-200s I do regardless whether I'm hand holding, on a monopod or on a tripod. However, Canon's IS is almost certainly different from Nikon's VR (must be, since they both use patented technologies). Many Nikon users feel that VR slows down auto focus and there's some anecdotal evidence to support that. After using them for about 15 years, I feel Canon's IS does the opposite... If anything it seems to help auto focus speed of acquisition and tracking ability. Also, while a few Canon lenses require IS to be turned off when on tripod, that's only when it's fully locked down and there's absolutely no physical movement of the lens... certainly not the way I'm using a lens on a tripod with sports. Plus, many Canon lenses, including all their 70-200s with it, sense lack of movement and turn off IS automatically. I figure, if nothing else, IS or VR can be turned off if you don't need it.... turned back on if and when you do. (Canon still sells two versions of 70-200 with IS and two versions without it. Primarily for the lower cost of the lenses, some sports shooters opt for the non-IS versions and are simply careful to keep their shutter speeds fast enough.)



That maybe true of Nikon users. But it's not the case with Canon shooters. Sure, some turn IS off... Mostly to save a little battery power. But a lot of Canon users leave it on, too. After all... at least with Canon's IS... it can't hurt, might even help. Heck, I've got the switch on several of my lenses covered with gaffer tape, to be sure I don't accidentally turn off IS!

As to the weather sealing... Personally I think that's not much of a consideration, for one reason: If I'm out shooting in nasty weather, I'll protect my camera and lenses anyway. I'll use a rain sleeve, plastic poncho... heck a plastic baq from a grocery store or a shower cap from the hotel room have served at times. Truth is, none of these cameras are entirely weatherproof. At best they are weather-resistant. About half my lenses, including both 70-200s, are supposed to have more advanced sealing... but I don't treat them any differently than the ones without. I take extra precautions with all of them, as much as possible.

Much as I try to avoid it, I have gotten caught out in nasty downpours a couple times with both weather-resistant and less-well-sealed cameras, lenses and even flashes. IN the worst soakings, I simply protected it as best I could and immediately turned it off, removed the batteries and dried it thoroughly for 2 or 3 days before powering it back up again. Never had a problem or failure with a modern camera, lens or flash, due to weather-related situations.

I don't know about they models you asked about, but Nikon's new 70-200/2.8 "FL" is supposed to have incredible image quality. AFAIK, it's the first of Nikkor zooms to use fluorite. Most of the Canon have used FL all along... even the lowest priced one (non-IS, f4... about $700).

whitewolfowner

No, I am talking about the exact lens I mentioned; the 70-210 f4.0 AF lens released in 1986. It is a straight f4.0, not a variable lens. It is small and compact compared to the f2.8's. I still have it and even though I have the 80-200mm f2.8D EDIF AF-S lens, I will still keep it for it's compactness and smaller size when handy. Age has nothing to do with how good or sharp a lens is. Some of Nikon's sharpest lenses were made decades ago: the 105mm f2.5, released in 1959 or 1960, the 300mm f4.5 are perfect examples.

therwol Loc: USA

I remember considering that lens right after buying my Nikon D810. I read a number of complaints about focus issues with the lens, and even Ken Rockwell complained about a focus issue. I have a Nikon 55mm f2.8 AF Micro I bought second hand that looks like a smaller version of your lens, and it seems to have some focus issues, but not all of the time. These are among the earliest Nikon AF lenses. I'm going to assume that you've not had any problem with yours.

jaygreen55 Loc: Westport CT

The problem I had with both the 80-200 non VR and 70-200 VR is that they are both too damn heavy to lug around all day long. I found myself using the much lighter 70-300 F4.5-5.6 far more often even though the IQ was not in the same league in terms of resolution, sharpness and distortion . As soon as the F4 version came out I traded in my 2.8 lens for it. The image quality is great and because of the light weight (30 gm vs 50 gms) it's much easier to hand hold and VR keeps it sharp down to 1/20th second at 200mm. It may not be 100 percent weather sealed but because it zooms internally it's not like it pulls in dust and moisture like a telescoping zoom does. As far as speed goes it's only a one stop difference and today's cameras are noise free at higher ISOs

If you really need F 2.8 and don't want to spend Nikon money look at the Tamron which has VR, is moisture resistant and can be had for $1500

whitewolfowner

I have used it mostly on a D80 which in itself is bad on focus in low light; however I have had no focus issues with my copy of the 70-210 f4.0 AF lens. I have shot many sporting events in terrible lighting conditions with this lens for years and never had a focus problem with the lens at all. With the camera, yes, but not the lens and I can say that because I have used other lenses in the same shooting situations and have noticed nothing different when using the 70-210. I have also used it in many well lit, day time sporting events and no issues at all with the lens or camera, with the D80 focusing perfectly OK in good light. I have not heard of this before and I have owned the lens since the late 80's, early 90's having bought it used at a trade show.

therwol Loc: USA

You sometimes have to take Ken Rockwell with a grain of salt. Sometimes his reviews are right on. Sometimes the things he says border on psychotic, and I think he does that to get your attention. In any case, here is his review of your lens. http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70210f4.htm

I don't have time for a complete internet search again on this lens, but I recall that others have had focusing issues. Perhaps there are too many variables including the camera to blame the lens for all of its perceived imperfections. One problem could be that people are buying this 30 year old lens second hand, and you never know how the lens was treated. Perhaps the lens you buy was found at the bottom of a ravine on Mt. Everest, and you can imagine how it got there. In any case, when you get a winner, you're happy, and that's all that counts.

I have found when buying used lenses like this on eBay, the lenses coming from Japan have been treated better than what you typically find in the used display of a local camera store.

If you want to know, I ended up buying the 70-200 f4 VR new, and it's a stellar performer. I can't deal with the weight of the f2.8 lenses attached to an already heavy camera. I did have to do a fine tune on the focus because of a front focus issue, so nothing is perfect.

whitewolfowner

I have read several of Ken Rockwell's reviews and have had a personal experience with him. He is a nut to say it kindly and I wouldn't believe a word of what he writes.

therwol Loc: USA

I've exchanged a half dozen e-mails with him. I've pointed out to him that he leaves obsolete information all over his web site from experience he had with equipment 10-15 years ago. He once compared digital and large format photography many years ago using a 6 megapixel Nikon as the digital example. That article is still on his site. He told me he doesn't have time to clean it up. It's almost comical they way almost everything he likes becomes the camera or lens that he always carries around with him. He would need a truck. I don't think he's always wrong. It's just hard to tell the difference. One thing I do like about his site is that it introduced me to the existence of equipment/cameras/lenses that I didn't know anything about. But I never trust everything he says.

whitewolfowner

You are smart to do that. He told me that the only way to get a new piece of gear was to buy from one of his recommended stores; all others and all retail stores sold seconds and refurbished gear as new. He was using that as an excuse for why I was having a problem with an item I bought (a D750 with the flaring problem). When I replied to him that I had bought it from B & H, he got all upset that I didn't inform him of that from the beginning. Truth is, what did that have to do with anything at all in the first place? NOTHING AT ALL. I've seen municipal waste treatment plants with less bull than he touts.

therwol Loc: USA

I bought my D810, 70-200 f4 VR and a 50mm f1.4 AF-D from a local camera store in the past couple of years. I bought two lenses from B&H in the same time period. I don't have a problem either way. I'd like to give the local guy the majority of my business so maybe he's going to be around in the future. Things are getting tough for smaller camera stores these days. I have to wonder if K.R. is somehow getting kickbacks. I wouldn't think that B&H or Adorama would work that way, but what do I know?

whitewolfowner

Oh, he is. Why do you think he wants you to buy through his site at his stores. It's all about money and that is obviously all he cares about. Why else would he tell that if I don't buy from his stores, I cannot get new gear? How stupid does he think I am?