If you have the Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-D... Please read. I need your help!

[Sw1tchFX]

I used to own this lens, but sold it because I never used it. The closer you focus, the worse it gets, at min. focusing distance, it sucks. Mine was never real good at f/2.8, whenever I needed a telephoto I always ended up renting the 70-200VR anyway.

 

[Nykon]

I have tried all three AF-C, AF-S, and AF-A, and tried using all the setting on the focus points and letting it find its own focus point just to see how sharp it would come out on its own. Nothing was really anything good, nor much better than any of the others.

 

[Kowalski]

I have the 80-200 2.8 AF-D, and it backfocuses if shooting from less than about 15' away from the subject between 135-200mm. The backfocusing is worse the closer you get. At the minimal focusing distance of 4.9', the subject is totally out of focus like in some of your flower images, where the leaves behind the flower are in perfect focus. I have a D7000 which has AF Fine tune, but even cranked to the max setting of -20, it will only correct for backfocus up to about 11-12' away. Anything less than 10' and the lens still backfocuses a little - maybe about 1/4" from the focus point. Based on your photos, it looks like you are shooting from within 15', hence the backfocusing. The backfocusing issue with this lens has been well documented for many years in different forums, and Nikon is aware of this issue with this lens. If you look on page 229 of your D90 manual, point 8 tells you to manually focus when zoomed all the way in at minimum focus distance. This issue is just unfortunately part of the old lens design - I don't believe the intended market for this lens, journalists and other pros, would normally shoot at 200mm from short distances. Knowing its limitations, I don't use this lens for subjects less than 10' away. Other than this quirk, images are in focus and very sharp.

So the bad news is, this lens won't work for you if you plan on using it to shoot between 135-200mm at close distances. One solution is to use Live View to focus as it is very accurate (uses a different AF system), but it is slow and not always practical to use for moving subjects. If you ever upgrade to a camera with AF fine tune, you can fix the problem to a degree so you can at least AF properly from 11' away, but it won't go away, unless future camera bodies allow for a -40 setting...

 

[Kerbouchard]

One solution is to use Live View to focus as it is very accurate (uses a different AF system), but it is slow and not always practical to use for moving subjects.

That's the thing, the OP updated and said he tried using live view and shooting regularly and got the same results. That's not a back focusing issue since a back focus issue would not effect focusing in live view(like you said, different AF system).

IF the problem is equipment related, I would guess it's a damaged lens mount or a lens element out of alignment. If the problem is user error(the OP says he gets 20% good shots and 80% bad so it's possible), then I would probably say the highest common errors would be:
not using a fast enough shutter speed
poking the shutter release instead of gently pressing it
not waiting for the focus to lock before taking the shot
focusing, achieving a lock, and then moving the camera when recomposing

 

[whiplash23]

I don't own that lens, but have two friends who do and have been fortunate enough to borrow once. One friend actually sent his back to Nikon after doing some test shots and determining that the focus sucked. Nikon sent it back stating it was within specs. As it turns out, the lens is very sharp if you focus on something reasonably far away. If you are trying to focus 10 feet in front of you (like he was doing for the test), it isn't.

Also on the D90, be aware that if you are using AF-C, the best focusing spot to use is the center spot. It makes a huge difference when shooting sports. I couldn't figure out why I was getting a bunch of out of focus shots at my son's soccer games, until a member here turned me onto that little tidbit. The difference the following week was like night and day.

 

[Kowalski]

That's the thing, the OP updated and said he tried using live view and shooting regularly and got the same results. That's not a back focusing issue since a back focus issue would not effect focusing in live view(like you said, different AF system).

IF the problem is equipment related, I would guess it's a damaged lens mount or a lens element out of alignment. If the problem is user error(the OP says he gets 20% good shots and 80% bad so it's possible), then I would probably say the highest common errors would be:
not using a fast enough shutter speed
poking the shutter release instead of gently pressing it
not waiting for the focus to lock before taking the shot
focusing, achieving a lock, and then moving the camera when recomposing

These are valid points, but based on the original photos, all but 2 show signs of backfocusing - the leaves behind the flower are sharp, the child's collar and shoulder are in focus, the water behind the dog is sharp, the dog tag is sharp, and the dog collar is in focus. The one with the bee looks like it wasn't focus locked, and the one of the dog with the eyes closed looks like motion blur. If there is a problem with slow shutter speed or camera movement, then the entire frame would be blurred, And based on the magnification of the subject relative to the frame, it looks like the shots were taken from close distance using the long end of the lens, unless the photos are crops. Unfortunately, we can only guess as there is no EXIF data provided for these photos.

I also suspect the OP did not use Live View properly. It is a little tricky as there are various focus modes as well as noticeable shutter delay that may result in motion blur. Ideally, you should use a tripod for Live View to avoid camera shake. Again, EXIF data, and the photos taken in Live View, would be very helpful to determine the cause of the blurred photos.

 

[djacobox372]

I used to own this lens, but sold it because I never used it. The closer you focus, the worse it gets, at min. focusing distance, it sucks. Mine was never real good at f/2.8, whenever I needed a telephoto I always ended up renting the 70-200VR anyway.

Not my experience. I've owned the push-pull and the afs version of this lens as well as the 70-200mm vr.... I was actually disappointed with the performance of the vr lens and sold it as I preferred the IQ of my 80-200mm afs.

 

[penfolderoldo]

Looking at the pics there are several things that stand out, focus seems out on a lot of them, on the dogs face there's pretty clear camera shake (given the decent shutter speed on the exif data), tho the most common thing on all of them is the resolution - it's terrible (i'd expect this from ISO 1600+, not 200 or 400). Have you tried mounting it on a tripod and shooting some shots, then shoot the same sequence handheld and compare them? When you contacted B+H did they say what they did, if anything? presumably they charged you, so you have an absolute right to know what they did for the money. I'd also try mounting the lens on a different body, as i'm not convinced it's all down to user-technique, I think there may well be an issue with the elements too.