AF versus AF-D for a Nikon 80-200/2.8 lens

[astroNikon]

In another recent thread about sports soccer photography a poster hit the main problem I currently don't like with my soccer pictures.

The background is in too good of focus. This on my kit 18-105 VR f/3.5 - 5.6 lens

Thus the solution (for my christmas list) would be to get a good lens at f/2.8, such as the 80-200mm f/2.8 lens.

But there are a variety of choices out in the used market, the primary difference being AF versus AF-D, and also push-pull versus twist zooming. From what little I know the D is used for flash. If this is primarily a long reach lense does the "D" really matter for this instance?

My primary concern is that for outside photography where it could be bright or dark which would be better. I find myself not only at ISO 100 in the bright sunlight but also this past weekend when it was dark and rainy at ISO 800 @ f/5.6 to try and keep the shutter speed decently fast. Of course, the background was in nice focus too which takes away from the players.

 

[fjrabon]

your biggest issue with the older f/2.8 telephoto lenses and action shooting is going to be focus accuracy and speed. The push pull variant, I find basically unusable for a fast moving sport like soccer, the lens just won't focus fast enough with your D7000, which has a relatively low torque focus motor.

 

[412 Burgh]

Despite what Fjrabon touched upon. I can tell you that I had made many many great images from my Two Ring version of the 80-200 AF-D on my D7000. I will try to shoot some your way to give you an example!

 

[astroNikon]

Despite what Fjrabon touched upon. I can tell you that I had made many many great images from my Two Ring version of the 80-200 AF-D on my D7000. I will try to shoot some your way to give you an example!

He identified the push-pull version as the issue, not the two ring version .. If I understood him correctly

 

[Mach0]

It should work well used within its limits. I've used afs and afd lenses. Afs are great at tracking but I've had good success in using single point and following my subject. If they are running toward you, that will be hard regardless of the lens. I have no idea on the d7000 but I know that the motor in my d700 is much stronger than my d90.

 

[KmH]

Your biggest issue is going to be anticipating the action and understanding the variety of options offered by the auto focus module in your camera.

The notion the 2-ring Nikon 80-200 mm f/2.8 (or the earlier push-pulls) is unusable for shooting action sports because of focus speed and accuracy is absurd.

I also used a 2-ring 80-200 mm f/2.8 for soccer with no focus speed or focus accuracy problems.
It also didn't matter if the 80-200 was mounted on a D90, a D300, or a D3.

No doubt the newer 70-200 mm f/2.8 VR and VR II focus a tad faster or more accurately than the 80-200 mm's do, but they are far from being unusable.

 

[fjrabon]

Gotta love when people are criticizing the opinions of people who have actually used the exact gear combo in question (push pull and D7000) when they've only used sorta similar gear combos (d90 and two ring). The D7000 is well known for having the weakest internal focus motor Nikon makes and the push pull is known for being the slowest of the pro Nikon workhorse telephotos to focus.

The two ring focus speed is substantially better than the push pull. It's sorta nonsensical to base an opinion on the push pull based on the two ring, the latter is a substantial upgrade. I owned the push pull and my number of usable shots went up EXPONENTIALLY when I changed to the two ring. The AF-S current model is fastest of all, but the difference wasn't so great that it changed how I shoot in the way that going from the push pull to the two ring did. I ended up selling the AF-S and sticking to the two ring, which I actually prefer, even putting cost aside.

Are there shots you can get by anticipating the action with the push pull and the d7000? Sure, absolutely, but it also forces you into shooting certain ways. And you will absolutely miss certain shots because of it. If that's a compromise you can make, then absolutely it's fine. I think the push pull is a great portrait and static wildlife lens. But for fast moving sports I'd personally advise going with at least the two ring. Or a higher torque motor body if you're set on the push pull. Just my opinion, but again, I've actually shot soccer with this exact combo.

 

[astroNikon]

okay, that makes sense. I'll see if I can put together a good $$$ for the 2 ring AF-D or AF-S model.
The 70-200 VR is too much $$$ from what I've seen on eBay.

I'm using the 9 point focus points on my D7000. And (for example) if they are moving from right to left I keep the focus points a little to the right and track the person with the ball and keep them in the focus points (or try to, I'm getting better). Then when I shoot the person is (hopefully) still in focus and the ball goes where it goes because I know the ball is moving too fast for me at this point. I tried shooting from the behind to the side of the goal but that wasn't a good placement dependent where they came from and what side of the goal I was on. So now I just stay on the sidelines.

But the background is starting to get annoying in the pictures.


FYI, I do have an AF 75-300 f/4.5-5.6 push pull and if I recall, the focus is kinda slow, which I think is a reason I tried it once and went to the 18-105 AF-S VR lens that I use mostly now. But then as Keith said, I still have alot to learn anyways. Just this past weekend I finally felt comfortable balancing out the ISO / shutter and aperture on the varying outside conditions on the fly without really thinking about it. Versus last month where I kept having to stop and think about it.

 

[fjrabon]

okay, that makes sense. I'll see if I can put together a good $$$ for the 2 ring AF-D or AF-S model.
The 70-200 VR is too much $$$ from what I've seen on eBay.

I'm using the 9 point focus points on my D7000. And (for example) if they are moving from right to left I keep the focus points a little to the right and track the person with the ball and keep them in the focus points (or try to, I'm getting better). Then when I shoot the person is (hopefully) still in focus and the ball goes where it goes because I know the ball is moving too fast for me at this point. I tried shooting from the behind to the side of the goal but that wasn't a good placement dependent where they came from and what side of the goal I was on. So now I just stay on the sidelines.

But the background is starting to get annoying in the pictures.


FYI, I do have an AF 75-300 f/4.5-5.6 push pull and if I recall, the focus is kinda slow, which I think is a reason I tried it once and went to the 18-105 AF-S VR lens that I use mostly now. But then as Keith said, I still have alot to learn anyways. Just this past weekend I finally felt comfortable balancing out the ISO / shutter and aperture on the varying outside conditions on the fly without really thinking about it. Versus last month where I kept having to stop and think about it.

when you upgrade to f/2.8, you'll also have to adjust to being more precise with your focusing technique. The whole thing about the background being out of focus is that your depth of field (ie the amount of the picture that is perceptibly in focus) is a lot smaller, and it's much easier to miss focus. For instance, shooting at f/5.6 on an old push/pull model would probably be fine, as the increased depth of field allows it to not be as big of a deal if the motor can't keep up with the players you're tracking. and as you said, it's not so much following a running player that's the issue, the old push/pull could probably track that well enough, it's if there is a quick pass and then a header for example. I want to get the shot of that header. With the old push pull's focusing speed, there was no possible way that it was going to be able to focus fast enough to get that shot, no matter how well I anticipated it, if I'm shooting at f/2.8.

Also, I tend to shoot daytime sports where the light is changing in aperture priority mode, because I want to only have to think about changing the focal distance and the focal point. I tend to use the nine point system, and then the quick controller to change the point I use as I need to change composition. If it's difficult lighting, I may tend to only use the central focus point, which is most accurate, and then shoot wide so that I can compose with the crop. But I only do that if I have to.

 

[astroNikon]

That was another thing. I'm using my 18-105 lens on a DX sensor and I'm doing alot of photo cropping even when at 105.
so I'll plop on my "wish list" a nice 80-200/2.8 AF-D double ring lens

I do test my focus tracking skills on jets/airplanes alot (but not at a large aperture). I live in one approach zone of Detroit Metro Airport (alot of jets), and also the approach for Detroit City Airport (some), and flyovers for the approach for Pontiac municipal airport (alot), and small jets but mostly single and double engine airplanes that fly overhead on the small 1/2 mile runway 1/2 a mile away from my house (24 hours a day). I'm still trying to catch one of those big airbus dual deckers.

But granted, the planes aren't passing anything to another plane so there's only one moving object.

I think I'll practice on my 85mm @ 2.8 on some birds or the airplanes around here to improve my focusing skill.

 

[Derrel]

I owned two of the early Nikon 80-200 AF "push-pull" aka the "one-ring" models, the FIRST version....it's a nice,light lens for an f/2.8 zoom, weighing in around a full pound LESS than later lenses from Nikon with the same specification.

The AF on the 80-200 f/2.8 push-pull or one-ring lenses I owned was slooooow on the Nikon D1 and D1h. When I bought the 70-200 VR in 2003, I was IMMEDIATELY BLOWN AWAY by the improvement in focus speed, and reliability, of the AF-S lens on those two bodies.

The D1h was actually a pretty good sports/action camera for me, but the screw-driven focus in the push-pull 80-200 2.8 models was not very fast.

I have not shot the much newer 80-200 AF-D aka "two-ring" model.

Here is what I learned from a Thom Hogan column on the differences between AF-S and screw-driven focusing in Nikon cameras and lenses: Nikon's AF-S protocol can take the 3-D information from the AF module and the metering module, and can take the first data reading and calculate the EXACT DISTANCE to the subject under an AF bracket, and can then drive the lens to focus at that EXACT spot, in one, discrete operation, using an in-lens ultrasonic motor designed SPECIFICALLY for the lens in use. A screw-drive lens by contrast, works by performing a series of multiple focus adjustments and evaluations, and often over-shoots the target, in effect making a series of minor corrections to hit a focus distance based on basically, "trial and error with error evaluation and correction". All done by a series of mechanical linkages in the lens and the body of the camera.

In all fairness, the NEWEST NIkon cameras have more-sophisticated AF modules than the D1 and D1h that I had when I owned 80-200 AF one-ring lenses; I suppose it's possible that using a newer camera with a MUCH stronger AF module, the performance of the old warhorses might be better for moving subjects. And also, the specific KIND of movement is an issue: long-distance AF, like say at an airshow, is no big deal. Same with distant, lateral movement, like say, football from the sidelines with a subject moving basically parallel to the film plane...not very tricky. Those are EASY AF targets, with not much change in distance or speed or relative size of the targets.

What's "tricky" is something like pole vaulters, coming right at the camera; the 70-200 VR-1 can lock-on and ALSO track pole vaulters as they approach, plant, and then come up, forward, and at an angle, at 5 to 8.2 FPS on the old D2x with its strong, 11-area wide-spaced AF module. The lowly D70 can track and NAIL focus with the 300/2.8 AF-S Mark II...but only at 3 frames a second...

 

[astroNikon]

FYI, Luckily this is 10yr and younger soccer. So some passing and rarely headers. Gives me a chance to learn as they learn

 

[djacobox372]

Careful with the afs 80-200mm that lens is getting old and afs motors have a limited life. One glance at eBay and you'll find nearly as many broken copies for sale as working.

 

[astroNikon]

Careful with the afs 80-200mm that lens is getting old and afs motors have a limited life. One glance at eBay and you'll find nearly as many broken copies for sale as working.

AF-S motors have a limited life ???

eegads

so maybe stick with AF-D ???

why does the afs motors have such a limited life span ?

 

[Derrel]

AF-S motor do eventually burn out...and the 70-200 VR (1st version) lens can be 10 years old or older now...the 80-200 f/2.8 AF-S was made for just a short time, and then was replaced by the 70-200 VR. On lenses like the older 17-35 AF-S, and the 28-70 f/2.8 AF-S, and the earlier 80-200 AF-S and 70-200 AF-S VR, well, those lenses were VERY popular professional use lenses.

A 17-35 or 28-70 or other pro Nikon zoom lens "might" have been one of three AF-S zooms used by an everyday shooter who took thousands of shots with the lens,m and carried and used and abused it, every day. Ever seen older rental or "pool" gear??? Some of it is beat to chit.