Should I Keep It?

[fmw]

Yeah the 80-200mm 2.8 is a bit dated (still very good) lens.
Maybe its time for a modern 70-200mm 2.8 ?

Not in my view. I can't think of a single reason I would want to replace this lens. I sell the D lens for $500 or $600 and spend a couple of grand on basically the same thing? No thanks.

 

[goodguy]

Yeah the 80-200mm 2.8 is a bit dated (still very good) lens.
Maybe its time for a modern 70-200mm 2.8 ?

Not in my view. I can't think of a single reason I would want to replace this lens. I sell the D lens for $500 or $600 and spend a couple of grand on basically the same thing? No thanks.

Yeah I can understand that, many people love primes, I don't, as I said its a mater of personal taste.
But one thing I disagree, you don't need to spend few thousands of dollars on a 70-200 2.8 lens
A used modern Tamron or Sigma 70-200 2.8 which are very sharp should be well under 1000$ used and you get as bonus image stabilizing.
I think you can get the Tamron for around 700$-800$ and a used Sigma for less.
You can even get the older generation of Sigma for under 500$ and those are also very sharp just without the OS(image stabilizing).

 

[fmw]

But they aren't an improvement over what I have. It would be buying for the sake of buying rather than buying for a reason.

 

[Deleted member 215987]

That's why I keep my near mint Nikon F3HP! I could sell it for quite a bit more than I paid for it but it's such a work of art!

 

[fmw]

I liked the F3. It was the last of the normal sized F series camras. The F4 was a clunky, heavy monstrosity that only provided auto focus for all of that.

 

[Solarflare]

Um.

Sharpness isnt the only quality of that lens.

Its one of the best lenses Nikon ever made, and definitely on my list of lenses I want to get someday.

FYI, according to Ken Rockwell (who is a good source for information on old lenses), the sharpest lens Nikon ever made was the AF 55mm f2.8 micro.

 

[fmw]

Um.

Sharpness isnt the only quality of that lens.

Its one of the best lenses Nikon ever made, and definitely on my list of lenses I want to get someday.

FYI, according to Ken Rockwell (who is a good source for information on old lenses), the sharpest lens Nikon ever made was the AF 55mm f2.8 micro.

It is. It ranks as one of Nikon's finest. The 55 was a winner as well - so was the 105 f2.5, 18 f2.8 and a bunch of others.

 

[fmw]

It is almost scary to see how crisp and sharp the images are with virtually all AI manual single focal length Nikkors. Today I got in a 50 f2 from the 1980s and took it out with a few others for a test. I check sharpness by loading a NEF file into Photoshop, loading it and then viewing the the actual pixels. The results are truly stupendous when compared to the plastic zoom lenses of today. Over the past month I've had AI lenses come through here in every focal length from 20mm to 300mm and I tested every one before listing. All of them are similarly crisp and sharp. There is not a bit of question in my mind that today's plastic zoom lenses cannot tax the sensor in your camera. The sensor performs better than the lenses. Modern zoom lenses are pretty good in fact. But the old prime lenses will take your breath away and make you happy about how well your modern sensor performs.

Sorry for the rant. I just back from testing a few of them and couldn't resist singing their praises. The 180 above is a good example of what they can do.