Nikon 80-200mm F/2.8 AF D "One Touch"

Silverbackmp · Jan 4, 2008

I just scored a near mint Nikon 80-200mm 2.8 AF D "One Touch" for $670 on a buy it now on Ebay (plus a reasonble $10 actual shipping charge). Can anyone telll me anything about the lens. Should have I gone with the "push pull" varient and/or held out for the AFS? I use a D80 if that helps. Even with a slightly slower auto focus I think I should be OK with a quick adjustment of the "one touch" for focusing (not sure about a focus lock). Also, is there a seperate hood for this lens?

As I am not a professional, therefore I don't think I need the newest profession level gear but I'm happy to have the professional level gear from 5 or 10 years ago at a discounted price.

Thanks

Snyder · Jan 4, 2008

personally its a good lense, however I would never buy it, I would save the extra money to get a 70-200 Vr its just so much more superior to the 80-200 in every way. Just my 2 cents.

Antithesis · Jan 4, 2008

Snyder said:
personally its a good lense, however I would never buy it, I would save the extra money to get a 70-200 Vr its just so much more superior to the 80-200 in every way. Just my 2 cents.

At 2-3 times the cost. The 80-200 is still a very good lens (similar optically to the 70-200 from what I've read, just no VR). I went and fiddled with one of the push-pull versions at a local camera shop and absolutely hated it (the focus ring focuses backwards to my only other push pull lens for my FG), so I think you'll be happy with the zoom ring version. I've heard good things about the AF-S version, but I don't think the AF-D version will give you much of an issue. I plan to buy one eventually and I'll probably end up with the AF-D.

photogincollege · Jan 4, 2008

ill chime in, the 80-200 2.8 will be very good, and thats a good price, go for about 900 bh. yes the 70-200 vr will be far superior but its also a lot more expensive

. 1600 as compared to 900. If you can find a good deal go with the 70-200 otherwise since you say your not a pro and dont expect to be (and even if you did) i think the 80-200 should do fine.

sabbath999 · Jan 4, 2008

Snyder said:
personally its a good lense, however I would never buy it, I would save the extra money to get a 70-200 Vr its just so much more superior to the 80-200 in every way. Just my 2 cents.

No, it isn't "superior to the 80-200 in every way", even given that it costs a fortune.

The 70-200 VR (which I own) is not noticeably sharper than the 80-200, for example. The build quality is not more sturdy. It is not "one touch", which is a plus for some and a minus for others...

If I had to do it all over again, I would buy the 80-200 over the 70-200 VR... which I do not think is worth the extra money I paid for it.

photogincollege · Jan 4, 2008

Really? thats good to know actually, i really had no idea i was just agreeing with what he said lol.

Antithesis · Jan 4, 2008

What exactly does Nikon mean by One-touch btw?

jstuedle · Jan 4, 2008

I own the push-pull one touch and the last 80-200 before VR. Love them both, and both are tack sharp. (just as sharp as a friends 70-200 VR) The one-touch is great for quick action sports venues like high school b-ball and football games. (yea, maybe Euro style f-ball too) I like it for concerts too when you may want the whole stage in a frame, but then a single performer does something that you want to isolate. The only drawback to the one-touch is lack of a tripod foot. That is the only reason I have 2 versions. And no plans on getting a VR anytime soon. Just don't see the need.

Silverbackmp · Jan 4, 2008

Glad to hear good things about this lens from those more experienced than myself. I did my research before buying the 80-200 (days of reading and using the search feature on TPH--I'm lucky I still have a girlfriend). However, I was really unsure of which of the non AFS versions that people prefered and looks like I made a good choice for my needs. I'll spend the $80 or 100 for the automatic Bogen monopod (of which I would have bought even if I had gotten the 70-200 vr); I figure this gives me a poor man's v/r--same thing pros and others have used sucessfully for years before v/r.

Silverbackmp · Jan 4, 2008

Antithesis said:
What exactly does Nikon mean by One-touch btw?

From what I understand the zoom and focus is somehow on one ring but this may not be exactly right either.

PaulBennett · Jan 4, 2008

I bought one when they came out and still love it. Yes, one wide ring, push/pull/twist/twist for zoom and focus. The only down side to the lens is it's weight. First ones were available with or without a tripod mount. When ISO 25 was in popular use for outstanding fineness, a 2.8 lens made all the difference to getting long shots even in daylight. Even with high speed film the 2.8 allowed 1/2000+ speeds at the track. I moved to this from a Nikkor 500mm f5 cat lens which was just as heavy but had terrible contrast.

You scored a winner.

Garbz · Jan 4, 2008

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photograph...esources/AFNikkor/AF-Nikkor80200mm/index3.htm The MkIII has 2 rings, http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photograph...esources/AFNikkor/AF-Nikkor80200mm/index1.htm The MkII is the "One touch" model you speak of. It has a single ring for zoom and focus. And good luck finding the MkIV which had AF-S motor in it. That was discontinued when the 70-200 came out.

Frankly I'd much rather have the 80-200mm f/2.8 an extra flash unit, a new tripod, perhapse a bit of money left for another lens than the 70-200 f/2.8 VR. The price difference is astronomical! And quite frankly the VR is not worth it. Optically they are both nearly identical. On a D200 the AF is blitz fast, on a D80 this may be a different story and the AF-S model may have an advantage.

Silverbackmp · Jan 4, 2008

Yeah, I was looking at the AF-S really hard but for the price that they are bringing ($1200ish) you might as well buy the 70-200 ($1550-if you can catch it in stock) and get a warrenty.

I also missed a 28-70 F/2.8 on a buy it now for $750 to include a Heliopan filter (seller required a verified address which I'm in the process of getting). For that kind of savings I could have bought a 10-20 Sigma or 12-24 Nikon to cover the wide end and been completely happy and still be protected (except on the wide) if Nikon ever goes full frame exclusively.

PaulBennett · Jan 4, 2008

Silverbackmp said:
I also missed a 28-70 F/2.8 on a buy it now for $750

There is currently (Jan4,08) one on Craigslist.org for Portland Oregon for $500. Maybe worth checking out...maybe gone...donno

Snyder · Jan 5, 2008

sabbath999 said:
No, it isn't "superior to the 80-200 in every way", even given that it costs a fortune.

The 70-200 VR (which I own) is not noticeably sharper than the 80-200, for example. The build quality is not more sturdy. It is not "one touch", which is a plus for some and a minus for others...

If I had to do it all over again, I would buy the 80-200 over the 70-200 VR... which I do not think is worth the extra money I paid for it.

Optics- close to equal though vr helps when hand held in low lighting situations.
Build- both are sturdy the 70-200 is alittle bit longer and has a better tripod mount
Focusing- AF-S silent wave motor is great for quick silent focusing opposed to the noisy 80-200
plus- The best part if I want to take some photos of wildlife I can attach a x2 teleconvertor making it a 140-400mm. An 80-200 cant do that.
But this may not matter to some people.