In the market for a telephoto. Reccomendations?

[anubis404]

I'm reluctant to buy this lens before I've used it. I've been watchig several ebay and craigslist postings, and many Nikkor 80-200 F2.8 AF-Ds have sold in the $600 range. All were used, but in all the optics were in great condition. I think I'd rather a used Nikkor rather than a new Sigma. There's a local trade show going on on February 8th. I think I'm going to go to the show and handle the lens (maybe buy it if its at a great price) and make a decision from there. Is the Nikkor really a lot better than the sigma or the tamron?

 

[iflynething]

You won't be dissappointed. At least, for what you're shooting I don't think you will.

As far as optics, you will probably get some softness at 2.8, but compared to the Sigma and Tamron, it will be sharper

~Michael~

 

[anubis404]

Thats good to hear. IMO, the Nikkor kills 3 birds with one stone. Its cheap, long, and fast. This is in a way similar to the tripod triangle.

 

[LWW]

Is it necessary you follow me around and spam my threads? Grow up.

For those who aren't spamming this thread, is the Nikkor 80-200 Non AF-s non VR any good?

No. They are EXTREMELY good.

LWW

 

[sabbath999]

Is it necessary you follow me around and spam my threads? Grow up.

For those who aren't spamming this thread, is the Nikkor 80-200 Non AF-s non VR any good?

The 80-200 non-AF-s is optically excellent.

It is a beast of a lens (something that fast and that big is, not surprisingly, large and heavy) but optically it is excellent.