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

[KmH]

But the AF-S version hard to find, because Nikon didn't make very many of them.

 

[Infinite_Day]

I'm going to assume you saw this one?

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

 

[djacobox372]

But the AF-S version hard to find, because Nikon didn't make very many of them.

They come up on ebay often enough--typically sell at auction for around $800-900. There's only a few overpriced examples on ebay right now, but if you're patient you'll find one--make sure you check camera/lens combos as well, as that's where the best deals can be had. Mine came with a nikon F5, and the lens only cost me a few hundred dollars after selling the F5.

 

[412 Burgh]

I'm going to assume you saw this one?

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

noo... I saw it, but I have been looking around reading stuff about them. I did just recently sell my D3100 on CL with a nice guy.

 

[Infinite_Day]

Yeah - I figured you saw it. I was considering it myself but I need a higher quality replacement from my 18-105 first.

 

[412 Burgh]

Yeah - I figured you saw it. I was considering it myself but I need a higher quality replacement from my 18-105 first.

yeah My focal length is very short.. I have a 18-55mm kit and a 50mm 1.8. Hopefully I can find a good 80-200 I can't justify paying 2k for a lens.

 

[manaheim]

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.

I've used the 80-200 pretty extensively and have the 70-200 2.8 VR2. I seriously considered buying the 80-200 2.8 because it's nice and SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much cheaper, but the 70-200 2.8 VR2 is SO much faster to focus and the optics are significantly better.

As other said, yeah... it's great for what you're looking for (OP). It's heavy, sure, but ... meh. You get used to it. You don't need a monopod really... just set the shutter speed appropriately for your lighting. If you're planning to be indoors, yeah... monopod is going to help because you'll have less light, but that would be the case for any lens- heavy or otherwise.

 

[412 Burgh]

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.

I've used the 80-200 pretty extensively and have the 70-200 2.8 VR2. I seriously considered buying the 80-200 2.8 because it's nice and SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much cheaper, but the 70-200 2.8 VR2 is SO much faster to focus and the optics are significantly better.

As other said, yeah... it's great for what you're looking for (OP). It's heavy, sure, but ... meh. You get used to it. You don't need a monopod really... just set the shutter speed appropriately for your lighting. If you're planning to be indoors, yeah... monopod is going to help because you'll have less light, but that would be the case for any lens- heavy or otherwise.

Thank you, I think it will be a good starter lens for a long focal with low F stop. also this is another question I pose. When my body and Lens has a Auto Focus motor, do they work together or cancel each other out and only one work?

 

[manaheim]

Just the AF motor on the lens works and the on-camera motor goes inactive.

"starter lens" That's too funny.

 

[412 Burgh]

"starter lens" That's too funny.

....and why's that haha?

 

[manaheim]

"starter lens" That's too funny.

....and why's that haha?

Very few people would call a $900 or $2500 lens a "starter lens". Usually those people are spending $100-300. In fact, very few people even HAVE a lens over $500.

 

[412 Burgh]

"starter lens" That's too funny.

....and why's that haha?

Very few people would call a $900 or $2500 lens a "starter lens". Usually those people are spending $100-300. In fact, very few people even HAVE a lens over $500.

Well I mean I guess I truly don't either. I had two kit lens 18-55 and 18-105. Recently sold the 18-105 because I had this in mind. Also have a $200 50mm 1.8. So this would be my first mediocre glass. I keep hearing mix reviews with it's good for sports. I'm not looking to get the best breathe taking photos. I just want to be able to capture sports and have a pretty solid photo.

 

[KmH]

When my body and Lens has a Auto Focus motor, do they work together or cancel each other out and only one work?

When you get a moment, take a close look at the lens to camera interface.

You'll notice that on AF-S lenses, the place on the lens side of the mount the mechanical screw-drive would connect to the lens is just a blank recess. Also note the lens aperture actuation levers, the electronic contacts, the lens locking pin, etc.

 

[manaheim]

Well I mean I guess I truly don't either. I had two kit lens 18-55 and 18-105. Recently sold the 18-105 because I had this in mind. Also have a $200 50mm 1.8. So this would be my first mediocre glass. I keep hearing mix reviews with it's good for sports. I'm not looking to get the best breathe taking photos. I just want to be able to capture sports and have a pretty solid photo.

Is there a language barrier thing happening here? Mediocre?

 

[Mach0]

It's an old pro lens that has been upgraded. Still an awesome lens. Mediocre .... Maybe between price, performance vs. it's successor.i wouldn't call it a slouch or beginner.