80-200 AFS or AFD?

Joined
Apr 6, 2008
Messages
105
Location
iowa
I need some help. I am trying to determine which 80-200 f2.8 to get. I have scoured this website and others, and I still have the same questions. I may have acquired "paralysis by analysis".

I will be using it on a D300 (with the added grip), and my initial use will be college football (from the sidelines). I am not a pro shooter.

The 70-200 VR is out of my price range (for now) and I understand that the AFS version of the 80-200 focuses a little faster and has the focus lock buttons (which I'm not sure I will use).

If anyone has used both of the lenses to shoot fast action sports or birds in flight, I would love to hear about your experiences and recommendations.

Thanks!
 
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
317
Location
San Diego
Either of these lens' will probably be just fine. The AFS will obviously focus faster and if you are doing college football from the sidelines I would imagine your "keeper" rate with the AFS would be better. Don't believe IQ is much if any different and both are really good lens". Based on what you intend to shoot and if you can afford the extra $$, I think going with the AFS would be the ticket.

Ron
 
Joined
Feb 15, 2008
Messages
6,190
Location
Savannah, GA
I need some help. I am trying to determine which 80-200 f2.8 to get. I have scoured this website and others, and I still have the same questions. I may have acquired "paralysis by analysis".

I will be using it on a D300 (with the added grip), and my initial use will be college football (from the sidelines). I am not a pro shooter.

The 70-200 VR is out of my price range (for now) and I understand that the AFS version of the 80-200 focuses a little faster and has the focus lock buttons (which I'm not sure I will use).

If anyone has used both of the lenses to shoot fast action sports or birds in flight, I would love to hear about your experiences and recommendations.

Thanks!

I've only used the "D" version of this lens. It's recommended as being less prone to malfunction.
I shoot baseball
2572125360_bcdd3e95f6_b.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

BIF
2561138646_c4ffb53933_b.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


2569978661_433ea712d6_b.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Still Birds
2579591706_20b472177a_b.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Pets
2532579184_77aa5bef33_b.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

And I'm thrilled with it. I usually shoot at less than 1/1250s so I don't need the VR. For extended use (Like a baseball game) I often use a monopod, just to support the weight. Hope this helps, Fred
 
Joined
Apr 6, 2008
Messages
105
Location
iowa
Thanks Gretchen.

Have you used both and if so, how noticeable is the difference in focus speed?
 
Joined
Apr 6, 2008
Messages
105
Location
iowa
Thanks Ron.

I'll ask you the same question I asked Gretchen. Have you used both and is the difference in focus speed noticable?
 
Joined
Feb 7, 2007
Messages
4,519
Location
Suwanee, GA
I use the AF-D version...I find it focuses fast enough for everything I use it for.

Football
falcons_tc027.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


Baseball
072608rome_br002.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


072608rome_br000.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


And Animals...
gh_lunch6_cr.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


The AF-S version is a big bigger and heavier than the AF-D version. I like the compactness of the AF-D as I can normally get it into most pro venues without any issues. Also, the used prices of the AF-S now are upwards to $1200, and the AF-D is normally right around $650-800 depending on the quality. That might weigh in on your decision too. Either way, both are great lenses!
 
Joined
Apr 6, 2008
Messages
105
Location
iowa
Thanks Dave.

Price is definitley part of the picture. I'm trying to see if the AFS features are worth the extra money. Captures like those make it hard to argue for spending an extra 3 to 4 hundy. I've already ruled out needing the VR as I will be on a monopod, so it's coming down to focus speed, and it looks like that is less of an issue than it sounds like.

Those are great shots and just the kind of thing I am looking to do -

assuming I have the talent -

someday....
 
Joined
Dec 25, 2007
Messages
1,855
Location
New Orleans area, Louisiana
Speed of focus will really become an issue when the light is not enough. That is when the AF-S helps. If you won't be shooting in iffy lighting conditions, then AF-D maybe the optimal solution.
 
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
5,206
Location
Fort Leavenworth, KS
Darn this forum....the long end is where I have NO glass.....

Now I have to save my pennies for this one. I won't ever need the VR, since the long shots won't happen indoors or at night, so it shouldn't take me nearly as long to save up, LOL!
 
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
224
Location
Cook County, IL
i was in this same predicament at the begining of this year and i ended up going with the AF-D and am very happy with it. i have shot a little bit of sports. mostly cars though and it works great. focus speed is more than enough.
 
Joined
Dec 28, 2007
Messages
93
Location
Florida (mostly), USA
The D version: sharp, nice bokeh & fast enough (especially for outdoor sports)!
2734293436_63f8d521d5.png
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
317
Location
San Diego
Yes, I have shot with both of these. While I agree with a lot of the posts here, the AF-D does a great job, but for what you want to shoot I would go with the AF-S version. Big difference in focus speed? Maybe not huge, but there is a difference--that's why it has an AF-S motor--if you are going to shoot action and want to give yourself the best chance of getting the shot, go with the fastest focus lens. For what you are doing I don't think VR is a big deal but the fastest focus speed on a good lens is--get the AF-S.

Ron
 
Joined
Aug 1, 2006
Messages
13,855
Location
Massachusetts
I have not owned the AF-D version, but I know the focus speed difference between my AF-S lenses (80-200, 28-70, 300/4) and my D lenses (35, 50, 85). To me, it's a rather noticable difference and if I were shooting sports, I'd want the AF-S.
 
Joined
Apr 6, 2008
Messages
105
Location
iowa
Awesome info folks - much appreciated - now the problem becomes actually finding one or the other :eek:
 
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
1,747
Location
San Diego
I like my 80-200mm, however, I lust for the 70-200.

Here are few with the AFD & x1.4

340815327_38K5S-L.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


340815164_eyxVe-L.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
Jul 4, 2006
Messages
502
Location
Georgia via Long Island, NY
Have had both (two AFD's and one AFS). AFD...great lens, easier to handle (subjective), fast enough AF on powerful bodies for many applications, some focus issues at close range (AF only...Nikon documented), noticably slower to focus. AFS...sharper from f2.8 to f4, much better with tc's, smoother MF operation. Enough of a quality difference to be worth the extra cost? For me...yes...for you...? As it is with all equipment...consider your application and needs, not what everyone else tells you to get...that includes me :).
 
Joined
Feb 7, 2007
Messages
4,519
Location
Suwanee, GA
There's an 80-200 AF-S for sale in the For Sale Forum right now. It looks like you'll need a few more posts and perhaps a little more time on the forum before it opens up to you though. Keep posting and then get over there!
 

Latest threads

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom