Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-D: Anyone use it?

[Hooligan Dan]

I'm looking into getting a new telephoto and I'm pretty sure I'm gonna go with this one, but I can't find much in the way of an extensive review. Our good friend Ken Rockwell sings it's praises, but he also admits to not using it much(http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/80200.htm).

I know most people will say save for the 70-200 VR, but it's out of my price range right now, plus I've been shooting low light for years without vr and I can hand-hold down to 1/4 without a problem already, so it seems a waste of money right now. And I don't mind paying 150 bucks more for the older nikon than the newer sigma 70-200.

Has anyone here done much with this lens?

 

[notelliot]

hand-holding a heavy (it's not that heavy) tele at 1/4sec without vr is going to be a stretch.

i don't own one, but i've used one a couple times. there are a couple people around the forums that own it, maybe they'll tell you something about it.

i thought it was pretty much what it was advertised as.. a sharp, fast telezoom. well built, okay focusing. it also has a macro setting, but i can't remember using that.

 

[Hooligan Dan]

hand-holding a heavy (it's not that heavy) tele at 1/4sec without vr is going to be a stretch.

i don't own one, but i've used one a couple times. there are a couple people around the forums that own it, maybe they'll tell you something about it.

i thought it was pretty much what it was advertised as.. a sharp, fast telezoom. well built, okay focusing. it also has a macro setting, but i can't remember using that.

Eh, I'm a photog for a newspaper and I always have a monopod on me, so if I'm shooting at that slow a speed I'll have the pod on me for support anyway.

Quality wise though, it's worth paying the 150 more than the sigma?

Thanks for the input, btw.

 

[JIP]

Before VR it was the lens for Nikon. I have used it quite exyensively but with film and it was always an excellent lens. It is a little heavy but if you have a monopod you will have no problem and for most situations you should be able to hand-hold it. To me buying a Nikon lens for a Nikon camera is always the best thing to I have no problem with Sigma if you cannot afford the Nikon but if you can afford it go with it.

 

[Hooligan Dan]

Well, thank you, sir. When you get a quick minute, would you mind posting a couple images you've taken with it?

 

[Garbz]

This is by far my most favourite lens in my collection. If you doubt it's sharpness just look at the review
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/46-...-80-200mm-f28d-ed-review--test-report?start=1 and stop relying on Ken Rockwell. It's amazing that he is reviewing something he has used before. Some of his other reviews are purely biased opinions on something he's never touched before.

I used this image to do a filter test last year when I first got the lens. This was shot 80mm at f/5.6. and is a 100% crop:

Some other photos I've taken (not 100% crop):
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2040/2130218179_1d76808a40_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10090242@N03/2300951481/sizes/o/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10090242@N03/2300951473/sizes/o/

Oh and lens flare is practically non-existent: http://www.flickr.com/photos/10090242@N03/2301737526/sizes/o/

 

[JIP]

Well, thank you, sir. When you get a quick minute, would you mind posting a couple images you've taken with it?

Nope sorry all of them were on film from many years ago when I to was a newspaper photographer.

 

[sabbath999]

I have the 70-200 VR.

If I had it all to do over again, I would have bought the 80-200 Nikkor. It is every bit as fast and sharp, just missing out on the VR... but frankly, that VR and the AF-S isn't worth an extra grand.