Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8D Softness at 200mm

fsnfms · Apr 19, 2016

Hello guys, I bought 80-200mm f/2.8D (2 Ring Version) from Keh. I've doing some test shots and I realized this softness at 200mm f/2.8. At f/4, it is sharp and it is sharp throughout the focal length at f/2.8, just not at 200mm. Here are some images. Is this normal? Thanks!

200mm @ f/2.8

200mm @ f/4

135mm @ f/2.8

Derrel · Apr 19, 2016

Pretty much par for the course...softness at f/2.8, MUCH better at f/5.6. Even just one stop down at f/4, the improvement over the wide-open f/2.8 performance is clear in your test shots.

MANY, maybe even most, tele-zooms lose some image performance as they get to their longest focal length values; your 135mm f/2.8 shot shows that tendency as well.

Look at Thom's 200mm f/2.8 and his 200mm f/5.6 test target illustrations in the review-your lens shows the same issues.

80-200mm f/2.8 Lens Review by Thom Hogan

fsnfms · Apr 19, 2016

Derrel said:
Pretty much par for the course...softness at f/2.8, MUCH better at f/5.6. Even just one stop down at f/4, the improvement over the wide-open f/2.8 performance is clear in your test shots.

MANY, maybe even most, tele-zooms lose some image performance as they get to their longest focal length values; your 135mm f/2.8 shot shows that tendency as well.

Look at Thom's 200mm f/2.8 and his 200mm f/5.6 test target illustrations in the review-your lens shows the same issues.

80-200mm f/2.8 Lens Review by Thom Hogan

I know all zoom lenses have softness at its longest focal length, but since this one is used and has such a good reviews, I expected haze inside the lens.

table1349 · Apr 19, 2016

It's not generally the focal length that generally causes softness it is the aperture. You can see that from your own shots. Virtually all lenses shot wide open will exhibit softness. I shoot Canon and my 70-200 f2.8 II is sharp at 200mm. Of course it is sharper at f4 - f5.6 and above rather than at f2.8.

manaheim · Apr 19, 2016

Push any lens to any extreme and you'll see where it falls down. Want to have some real fun? Get an 18-200 and focus it to 200mm. Party in a can. So bad it's unusable.

fmw · Apr 20, 2016

While the Nikkor 80-200 f2.8 is one of the best telephoto zooms on the market, it is still a zoom lens with those compromises. You will find this to be true sometimes with fixed lenses as well. I used to have a Nikkor 200mm f2 which was slightly soft in the corners at f2. It was dynamite at f2.8.

I would say your lens is fine. If you want best image quality at 200mm now you know that you need to stop down a little. I think you made a great choice.

dannylightning · Apr 22, 2016

that does look to be a known issue with that lens. which really sucks.. but.. what is your shutter speed. you could be getting some blur from the shutter opening and closing if your shutter speed is slow and your camera body is light.. . it almost looks like some blur or missed focus to me.

if you have not already, try it on a tripod with a shutter speed of 1/500 or faster and see what happens. or like others said try a move a few stops on the aperture..

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

manaheim said:
Push any lens to any extreme and you'll see where it falls down. Want to have some real fun? Get an 18-200 and focus it to 200mm. Party in a can. So bad it's unusable.

not true... 18-200mm lens wide open at 200mm... and the squirrel one is taken in really lousy lighting and cropped a good deal... there are times when i get a really bad photo with that lens. but over all i think its a overall nice lensm most photos turn out pretty descent to really good even at 200mm... i just went outside and snapped these really quick.. totally usable images.

dxqcanada · Apr 22, 2016

Also looks like some slight back focus @ 200mm, so that does not help ... micro adjustment would help.

manaheim · Apr 22, 2016

Or just don't use it at 200. There are GOING to be quality issues at the extreme zoom points. Even 190 would be better.

Derrel · Apr 22, 2016

Not to put too fine a point on it, but when shooting this era's zoom lenses, it's not at all uncommon to see that at the closer end of the focusing distance range, that there is some loss of sharpness. This loss of sharpness at close focusing distances can be due to multiple reasons: shallow depth of field at wide apertures, which cannot 'cover' three-dimensional objects fully; lack of perfect flatness of field, called 'curvature of field' or 'field curvature'; minor focusing errors on the part of the human operator, or the AF system or the camera + lens pairing; at smaller shooting f/stops, there can be a focus shift, where the sharpest focus shifts a bit from where it appears to be with the lens at the wide-open aperture.

On one of the shots--note that the center of the lens and the gold-colored writing on the lens shows that one area is not quite fully in the sharpest focus, but the edges, located a tiny bit behind the central area of the lens, are in good focus: this could be either 1)an AF square aiming problem, or 2) curvature of field at close range or 3)simply inadequate depth of field, or 4) a slight mis-focusing tendency.

Keep in mind: MANY lenses are NOT at their best when shot at or near minimum focusing distance. This lens was never designed to be optimal at close-range, wide-open aperture performance. As you can see by the Thom Hogan test photos, this lens is simply NOT super-clean at f/2.8--it improves remarkably at a sane, normal, 1990's shooting f/stop of f/5.6.

Speaking of field curvature, here's a fascinating article on it Field Curvature and Stopping Down

and one that's even neater: Field Curvature and Stopping Down

23NR · May 14, 2016

I own the 80-200 f2.8 push pull version, and that is also a little bit soft at 200mm. However, it is still a great lens!
Just close down the aperture a little bit and it should look much better.

astroNikon · May 14, 2016

I'm curious what AF mode you were in and what you were focusing on.
Shooting up it looks like you focused on the bottom end cap or table leg at an a very up close distance thus a shallow DOF . Minimum focus distance for that lens is close to 5 feet which would give you 0.02 feet DOF on a DX camera at f/2.8.

I have the 80-200/2.8 and use it extensively but I never use it up close. Mostly soccer which is more distance but at f/2.8. If I do any studio type shots with it I'm at f/4 - 5.6 or more not due to softness but DOF.