wrangler5 Loc: Missouri

I've had the 80-200/2.8 since my daughter was competing in horse shows. It started work on an F3, then an F100. When I went digital there were no FX cameras, but it continued to do its usual fine job on my DX cameras for years. It just gave a narrower field of view on the smaller sensor, which rarely mattered around a jumping or dressage ring. And when I finally got an FX Nikon - well, it just continues to work. I don't do horse shows any more (she grew up and moved out, and can't afford 'em on her own) and haven't had occasion to use that lens in years, but it's too good a lens to get rid of until I'm absolutely sure I won't want it ever again.

So - if you can get one at a good price, you are unlikely to ever regret the purchase. Be aware that it IS a heavy beast, though. Mine was almost always used on a monopod - with an Arca Swiss pattern clamp on the monopod and an appropriate plate on the lens you get a rock solid attachment in a second or two, with no fiddling around trying to get the usual screw attached to the lens. (A bonus is that when you walk around with that setup on your shoulder you can frequently get into areas where you might not otherwise be allowed.)

Barny

FX lens on DX body is good. I have a 70-200mm f2.8 the original model on a D500 a vey good combo. I believe the 70-200mm f2.8 is better than the 80-200mm f2.8. 70-200 is still being made, just introduced the mkII (3rd generation)

nimbushopper Loc: Tampa, FL

I have that lens and use it on my D500 with excellent results. It is large and heavy and doesn't have VR like its replacement 70-200 which cost more than twice the price of a used 80-200. You didn't mention the price you are paying so only you know if it's a good value.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

It's a great lens, regardless what camera it's on. I got one from KEH a couple of years ago for a little over $600. Compare that to the $2,100 the new 70-200mm costs.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

It was an excellent lens for its time but is outdated. No VR, slow focus and heavy. On the plus side its f2.8.

Look at the 70-300 AF-P DX. An excellent lens, VR, Light, fast focus, broader zoom range and only cost $400 new. You won't regret it.
At the high end its f6.3 but the D500 can easily make up for it.

It may be the last tele lens you buy.

rdubreuil Loc: Dummer, NH USA

Keldon, I have that combination and the two are awesome together. Nearly all metal construction, rugged and really sharp, I'm sure you'll love the combo too. The fact that it's still a current production lens in the 1,200+ range should tell you something. On the crop sensor your field of view will be equivalent to 120-300. Snap it up, you won't regret it. Good luck and happy shooting.

Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina

What about the Three Tenors...

Best,
Todd Ferguson

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

I keep buying and selling that lens. Used in when I shot professionally for a Ohio school system. Loved it at the time. I now use the latest 70-200 2.8. There is nothing wrong with that lens, if everything works and you can get it at a good price, you probably will not loose much if you decide to sell it. Love the shape of the lens hood.
Before you buy, check out these SOLD lenses on ebay to assure yourself of a good deal. This is a good indicator of what that lens is currently worth. https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_sacat=0&_nkw=Nikon%20ED%2080-200%20F/2.8%20D&LH_Complete=1&LH_Sold=1&rt=nc&_trksid=p2045573.m1684

nimbushopper Loc: Tampa, FL

I disagree that the 80-200 is slow to focus! Having said that, if you decide to buy the 70-300 referenced above, I have one purchased from Adorama new in May of this year, still in as new condition with box, warantee cards, lens shade that I would sell at a very good price. It came with my D500 but I already have the 70-300 FX version so I don't need both of them. If interested PM me.

Fotomacher Loc: Toronto

I used this lens on a D300s for a few years and got great IQ. The lens is solid, has great optics and focuses reasonable quickly. I had a D700 at the same time and used the lens on both bodies. I have nothing negative to say about this lens, but it has been replaced 3 times now with 3 generations of the AFS Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 therefore I would not suggest paying more than US$450 for it and buy only if it is in mint condition.

Nikonman44

FX DX the difference is maybe a little better resolution but unless you are a totally high type pro you wont be able to tell the difference.

You might see some varience in what the camera really records.

Other than that an 2.8 Nikon is always a good choice.

Nikonman44

that is a very valid point for sure. great lensa nd super camera you cant go wrong

Nikonman44

another very valued idea. the combo ill make you happy. go get it if the price is right.

Nikonman44

there you go. another opportunity to get a great lens and maybe save even more

Largobob

Can't vouch for the first two, but the 70-200 (Nikkor AF-S VR 70200mm f/2.8 G IF-ED) is a MAGNIFICENT performer. Sharp as a tack; fast focus; wonderful Bokeh; but weighs a ton and not inexpensive. My best glass.