80-200 f2.8

[Kevin Scott]

I own the AF-D version of this lens that I bought used at Christmas time. I've been thinking about upgrading and have been considering the 70-200 but also the 80-200 AF-S. Recently, I realized that the AF-S version of the 80-200 isn't produced any longer.

This seems strange to me. Why would Nikon create an AF-S version of this lens, then stop making it and begin to offer only the AF-D version? Is the used AF-D version I currently have (2-ring) the same as the newest version?

What's up with that?

 

[ckdamascus]

Simple answer. $$$.



I am guessing they did not want to fragment the market any more by having three choices.

 

[Francis]

As far as I know, the 80-200 AF-S is replaced by the Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 VR

 

[MontyDog]

#1064 - You have an error in your SQL syntax;

 

[MontyDog]

#1064 - You have an error in your SQL syntax;

 

[Kevin Scott]

Paul, I noticed on that link you provided that it says the optics were improved. So I guess that indicates it is better than the previous AF-D version. So then I wonder if the current version has still the same optics as the AFS version or did they improve them once again. ??

I'm not convinced I need VR but maybe I'll borrow Gale's and see what it does. Saving a little bit of $ is always a good thing. Also I keep reading reports of poor performance of the 70-200 and D2X but don't know if that's just the minority speaking loudly. I'd rather have AF-S than not.

 

[MontyDog]

#1064 - You have an error in your SQL syntax;

 

[ckdamascus]

Many have argued that the AF-S is sharper than the original 80-200mm.

 

[Kevin Scott]

Many have argued that the AF-S is sharper than the original 80-200mm.

Well, that's encouraging! I've been very happy with the results of my 80-200. I have an opportunity to earn some extra $ shooting sports and now that I've had the chance to use an AF-S lens, I hate to think of "trying to manage" without the added speed. I think I'm becoming a focus snob now, if there is such a thing.

Anyway, you know what I mean. I appreciate eveyrone's feedback. It's great to have a resource such as this to bounce ideas.

 

[ckdamascus]

Well the idea of "sharper" isn't really all that important. The question is how much sharper and at what price.

http://www.camerahobby.com/Review-70-200mmVR.htm

He demonstrates that with a teleconverter the differences between the two are more apparent.

Honestly, it's pretty darn close that it would clearly be diminishing returns. Only you can guage if increased sharpness, faster AF, manual focus override, etc, is worth it. My only gripe about used lens have no warranty and will acquire internal dust over time which is basically impossible to clean out by yourself. Why pay so close to full price when you have those nasty disadvantages?

Also, the NEW 70-200mm VR supposedly is more susceptible to ghosting/flaring. Honestly, I don't see that as a major problem but at least you will have some solace in using the older 80-200mm AF-D lens.