Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-D: Anyone use it?

Discussion in 'Photography Equipment & Products' started by Hooligan Dan, Mar 25, 2008.

  1. Hooligan Dan

    Hooligan Dan No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2008
    Messages:
    536
    Likes Received:
    85
    Location:
    Lodi, CA
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    I'm looking into getting a new telephoto and I'm pretty sure I'm gonna go with this one, but I can't find much in the way of an extensive review. Our good friend Ken Rockwell sings it's praises, but he also admits to not using it much(http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/80200.htm).

    I know most people will say save for the 70-200 VR, but it's out of my price range right now, plus I've been shooting low light for years without vr and I can hand-hold down to 1/4 without a problem already, so it seems a waste of money right now. And I don't mind paying 150 bucks more for the older nikon than the newer sigma 70-200.

    Has anyone here done much with this lens?
     
  2. notelliot

    notelliot TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2005
    Messages:
    827
    Likes Received:
    0
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    hand-holding a heavy (it's not that heavy) tele at 1/4sec without vr is going to be a stretch.

    i don't own one, but i've used one a couple times. there are a couple people around the forums that own it, maybe they'll tell you something about it.

    i thought it was pretty much what it was advertised as.. a sharp, fast telezoom. well built, okay focusing. it also has a macro setting, but i can't remember using that.
     
  3. Hooligan Dan

    Hooligan Dan No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2008
    Messages:
    536
    Likes Received:
    85
    Location:
    Lodi, CA
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    Eh, I'm a photog for a newspaper and I always have a monopod on me, so if I'm shooting at that slow a speed I'll have the pod on me for support anyway.

    Quality wise though, it's worth paying the 150 more than the sigma?

    Thanks for the input, btw.
     
  4. JIP

    JIP No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Messages:
    3,019
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Pittsburgh PA
    Before VR it was the lens for Nikon. I have used it quite exyensively but with film and it was always an excellent lens. It is a little heavy but if you have a monopod you will have no problem and for most situations you should be able to hand-hold it. To me buying a Nikon lens for a Nikon camera is always the best thing to I have no problem with Sigma if you cannot afford the Nikon but if you can afford it go with it.
     
  5. Hooligan Dan

    Hooligan Dan No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2008
    Messages:
    536
    Likes Received:
    85
    Location:
    Lodi, CA
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    Well, thank you, sir. When you get a quick minute, would you mind posting a couple images you've taken with it?
     
  6. Garbz

    Garbz No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,713
    Likes Received:
    203
    Location:
    Brisbane, Australia
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    This is by far my most favourite lens in my collection. If you doubt it's sharpness just look at the review
    http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/46-...-80-200mm-f28d-ed-review--test-report?start=1 and stop relying on Ken Rockwell. It's amazing that he is reviewing something he has used before. Some of his other reviews are purely biased opinions on something he's never touched before.

    I used this image to do a filter test last year when I first got the lens. This was shot 80mm at f/5.6. and is a 100% crop:
    [​IMG]

    Some other photos I've taken (not 100% crop):
    http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2040/2130218179_1d76808a40_b.jpg
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/10090242@N03/2300951481/sizes/o/
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/10090242@N03/2300951473/sizes/o/

    Oh and lens flare is practically non-existent: http://www.flickr.com/photos/10090242@N03/2301737526/sizes/o/
     
  7. JIP

    JIP No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Messages:
    3,019
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Pittsburgh PA
    Nope sorry all of them were on film from many years ago when I to was a newspaper photographer.
     
  8. sabbath999

    sabbath999 No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2007
    Messages:
    2,694
    Likes Received:
    61
    Location:
    Missouri
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    I have the 70-200 VR.

    If I had it all to do over again, I would have bought the 80-200 Nikkor. It is every bit as fast and sharp, just missing out on the VR... but frankly, that VR and the AF-S isn't worth an extra grand.
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

nikon 80-200mm f 2.8 af-d new

,

nikon 80-200mm f 2.8 af-d review

,

nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 af-d 2005 kenrockwell.com

,

nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 af-d how to use best