Nikon 80-200mm 2.8 ED

[Fleetwood271]

Just picked up this lens used on Ebay.

So, from those of you who have this lens, or have used it, am I going to be really happy with it?

Anything I should know. I realize that it doesn't focus quite as fast as the 70-200, but I understand the optics are really close. True?

Ken Rockwell suggested that I not buy it, since I am using it on my D90 (DX) body. But, I just couldn't pass this one up.

 

[mjbine]

I have that lens and use it all the time. It is great for basketball, wrestling and gymnastics. Great low light zoom.

 

[Derrel]

Which version did you get? There are like five version of the lens...does yours have one ring, or two?

 

[orb9220]

Yep it is on the beefy side weight wise. So good holding,breathing technique will help on hand-held.
And for wildlife,sports would recommend a monopod to be helpful.

Had to sell mine last year to pay some medical bills and really miss it. And doesn't look like anytime soon to reacquire for me being always broke.

So enjoy and to stretch the lens since you can't use Nikon's AF-S teleconverters. Had mine with the Tamron 1.4x which made for a 280mm f4 lens.


Tamron 1.4x by Orbmiser, on Flickr

Some say does well also with the 1.7x but wouldn't push it with a 2.0x as way to many hits in 2-stop loss and hits in Image IQ.

But yep something Magical about this lens.

D90..Nikon 80-200f2.8AF-D...Tamron1.4x..Handheld.

Harvest Moon Oct. 2009 Cropped by Orbmiser, on Flickr

Enjoy and Capture the Beauty Out There!

 

[D-B-J]

I have the two ring D version, and i love it. A solid performing and feeling lens. Definitely worth it.


Regards,
Jake

 

[Fleetwood271]

Derrel,

It is the Nikon AF 80-200mm f/2.8d ED - two-ring version.

 

[D-B-J]

^^ That is the one i have and it is wondrous! Definitely worth the money

 

[orb9220]

Yep miss My Baby "Big Bertha" and need Cheese with my Whine!


My Gal "Bertha" by Orbmiser, on Flickr

She's So Purty!
.

 

[manaheim]

The optics are a far cry from the 70-200 2.8 VR2, but not too far off (and some would argue better) than the 70-200 2.8 VR.

That said, it's cheaper than both.. the VR2 is 2.5x the cost of the 80-200 2.8 when NEW, let alone used.

It's a solid lens and I'm sure you'll enjoy it.

 

[djacobox372]

I have the af-s version and I love it! Focuses just as fast as the 70-200mm just no vr.

 

[Fleetwood271]

Thanks Guys!

Sound like this is gonna be a love affair.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

Mine was OK. I sold it because I always ended up renting the 70-200 (either version) instead.

 

[Garbz]

Sound like this is gonna be a love affair.

Was with me too. Take advantage of the focus limit switch if you can, that really speeds things up if your camera decides to focus hunt.

Also sharpness goes to absolute poo at 200mm f/2.8 at the near focus point. It's just fine further away or at 70mm, but then you didn't buy this to be a macro lens did you

 

[mrpink]

Sound like this is gonna be a love affair.

Was with me too. Take advantage of the focus limit switch if you can, that really speeds things up if your camera decides to focus hunt.

Also sharpness goes to absolute poo at 200mm f/2.8 at the near focus point. It's just fine further away or at 70mm, but then you didn't buy this to be a macro lens did you

^^ All of this.

I used my 80-200 on close focus once or twice with average results- since picked up a 105mm VR Micro and never looked back.

The 80-200 is a great general shooter lens. It is bulky and heavy, but all 2.8 zooms are.





p!nK