AF Zoom-NIKKOR 80-200mm f/2.8D ED

412 Burgh · Mar 7, 2012

Has anyone used this lens for sport photography nothing like professional sports or anything like that but High school sports / little children? I'm looking into investing into this lens and I'm pretty sure I will purchase it in the upcoming months. I just want to hear some feedback for sporting uses of the lens. Heard a mono pod is a must!

Patrice · Mar 8, 2012

That is a good lens, used to be the top of the line in that range. The newer 70-200 variants are not much better optically. There are like a million threads everywhere about this lens, its variants, and comparisons. Won't take much work for you to find just the information you might want.

It's a heavy lens, but not more so than any other in that range and aperture. you'll get used to it. A monopod is handy but calling is a must depends on who will be using it. They can be cumbersome but not as much as a tripod.

ann · Mar 8, 2012

At one time that lens was "glued" to my camera including sports.

It is heavy and yes a monopod, especially with sports would be a must imho

djacobox372 · Mar 8, 2012

I've used/owned all three versions of this lens, the single ring, the dual ring and the AF-S version. The single-ring version does focus pretty slow, and that might be bothersome when shooting kids. The dual ring is likely "good enough," and the AF-S version is just as fast as the newest versions in this category.

Optically they're all superb, as good as the 70-200mm f2.8 VR1, and almost as good as the VR2.

D-B-J · Mar 8, 2012

It's heavy, but it's a good lens. You can get one for anywhere from 700-900 these days, which isn't too bad. However, i find that mine struggles with focusing fast sometimes, and i do tend to miss shots (especially during soccer season). For that reason, i'm selling mine for a 70-200 VR I. It's a great lens, but it focus' slow sometimes, is rather heavy, and can have some pretty bad chromatic aberration at times.

snowbear · Mar 8, 2012

I've heard it referred to as part of the "Holy Trinity" along with the 14-24mm f/2.8 and the 24-70mm f/2.8.

D-B-J · Mar 8, 2012

snowbear said:
I've heard it referred to as part of the "Holy Trinity" along with the 14-24mm f/2.8 and the 24-70mm f/2.8.

More like the new 70-200 VR II--the holy trinity progresses every time one is updated.

nickzou · Mar 8, 2012

I heard this lens is optically better than the VRI by a bit.

Sw1tchFX · Mar 8, 2012

Used to own it. Sold it because I kept renting the 70-200 (I or II) when I needed the range.

Unless you've got a D1/2/3/4 or F5 body with alot of torque in the screwdrive, AF is very slow in comparison to the AF-S 70-200's. Wide open performance is okay when focused towards infinity, abysmal towards min. focus distance.

Save your money, either rent, or buy a 70-200 (either version)

matthewo · Mar 8, 2012

i was looking into them but i think im just going to go sigma 70-200 hsm ii instead...

412 Burgh · Mar 9, 2012

matthewo said:
i was looking into them but i think im just going to go sigma 70-200 hsm ii instead...

I looked at the 70-200 Sigma as well But I'm afraid to go away from a nikon lens but I can't imagine paying 3,000 for the Nikon 70-200 that's why I was looking at the 80-200 option... maybe I'll rent it to see if I like it.

matthewo · Mar 9, 2012

Well $2400 yeah. But can find 70-200 vr ii for 1900-2000 used and the vr ii around $1300

Thats why im going sigma, cause its a fraction of the cost around $700

KmH · Mar 9, 2012

At less than $1000 for a good used copy, you can't beat any version of the Nikon AF 80-200 mm f/2.8D.

Back in the day I shot action sports with manual focus only lenses, so if a screw-drive lens is a tad slow doing AF, I don't sweat it to much.

You may want to consider mounting the lens on a monopod.

412 Burgh · Mar 9, 2012

KmH said:
At less than $1000 for a good used copy, you can't beat any version of the Nikon AF 80-200 mm f/2.8D.

Back in the day I shot action sports with manual focus only lenses, so if a screw-drive lens is a tad slow doing AF, I don't sweat it to much.

You may want to consider mounting the lens on a monopod.

Yes I am looking for a good used one, but I may go brand new. It sucks because I live in the burbs of Pittsburgh and there aren't any camera shops around here in PGH that I can find that has the 80-200mm in stock or any other lenses of that fact to test out other than Best Buy's little 55-200mm and 70-300 which i'm not interested in. I'd like to inspect the lens before I bought it.. just a thing

PapaMatt · Mar 9, 2012

Yes, the 80-200 is a Tank and built like one. Very nice lens optic wise but slow focus in this day and age for sports and children at [play etc. Just my humble opinion, but I sold the one I had, it was not the AF-s one though. that one is much better at AF.