Nikon 80-200 2.8, sharp wide open @200mm ???

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by Nuteshack, Jul 8, 2007.

  1. Nuteshack

    Nuteshack Guest

    u tell me, ...old push/pull version hand held @2.8, 1/640s

    shot in jpeg (large fine, original file size 2.0mg) standard pp in PSE and resized...
    754612449_dd3be3a8da_o.

    and for u pixel peepers, 100% crop (usm was 150/0.3/0) saved @10 so the file wouldn't be too big....
    View attachment 104734

    i find the key to obtaining consistantly sharp images with this glass @200mm is speed, such as 400ss or better:biggrin:
     
  2. docshank

    docshank

    52
    Feb 24, 2007
    Tennessee
    Very nice image (as always), Nute. I just bought a new 80-200 AF-D, and they are very nice lenses. Looking forward to using this lens for taking pictures of my oldest granddaughter playing soccer in the fall.:wink:
     
  3. mood

    mood

    Jun 27, 2007
    suburbia, ny
    I agree,
    went to the zoo the other day with mine
    kept ss @ 400-500, let the aperture fall where it may
    many were 2.8-3.5 because of cloud cover, but very sharp
     
  4. Nuteshack

    Nuteshack Guest

    thanks Doc ...u might want to give that Kenko 1.4 a whirl too:smile:
     
  5. Very sharp IMO. You manage to post outstanding images whatever you use.
    I use my two ring version for the grandchildren's baseball and softball games and it works great.
     
  6. Hey Nute... The 80-200 is probably my favorite lens. Have heard a lot about it being soft at 200 wide open, but personally I hadn't experience it, mine has always been sharp. Must have a good copy, or just lucky at getting the focus/shutter just right...LOL.. BTW, nice shot Nute...again.....
     
  7. Nuteshack

    Nuteshack Guest

    ya Frank...seems like 150mm or so and further out isa little sensitive to speed..looks like u got it right shooting S priority here...lovely glass:biggrin:
     
  8. Nuteshack

    Nuteshack Guest

    thanks Tom ..nice hunk of glass for sure:biggrin:
     
  9. Nuteshack

    Nuteshack Guest

    yup, samples vary. like myself, u gotta good copy...thanks Wally:smile:
     
  10. That leads me to an interesting question: you know how the old standard is focal length = 1/shutter to get a sharp image: Example the 80-200 @ 200mm should be at least 1/200 of a sec - i wonder though does this change with the crop factor ? In other words should it be 1.5 x 200 = 300mm = 1/300 sec ?
     
  11. mood

    mood

    Jun 27, 2007
    suburbia, ny
    IMO, with the longer lenses especially, it is a safer bet
     
  12. Dave

    Dave

    Feb 7, 2007
    Suwanee, GA
    I always thought it was 1/twice focal length. So 200mm would be 1/400s. I try to keep this in mind when I am using my lenses without VR. I too am a big fan of the 80-200 (I have the 2 ring version) and think it is an extremely sharp lens as long as your shutter speed is high enough so that you won't have to deal with camera shake.

    My copy of the 80-200 is sharp at 200mm...although this one is not wide open.
    [​IMG]
     
  13. Nchesher

    Nchesher

    579
    Jul 7, 2006
    Lansing,MI
    My AF-S is pretty sharp wide open @ 200mm.
     
  14. Nuteshack

    Nuteshack Guest

    good point watson -> i don't think the old 1/1 is fora sharp image per say but more of a minimum ss per focal length. for the digital format (1.5 crop) i think 2 x ss/1 x fl asa minimum is advisable. for example, images from my 50 1.4 are noticably sharper when 125ss or more vs 60ss or less...there's always exceptions but ona consistant basis this seems to be the case. and the diff appears to be even more dramatic as the focal length increases.
    :smile:
     
  15. There's no hard-and-fast rule about shutter speed. I've done 300mm in 1/10 that was sharper than 18mm at 1/125...but it's a nice general ratio that seems to work with the general shakiness of human beings.

    Yes with crop you would multiply the guideline, because the important factor is *field of view* and not the focal length itself.
     
  16. tech1961

    tech1961

    Jan 28, 2007
    Houston Tx.
    Nice Nute. I love my push pull.
     
  17. jaydog

    jaydog

    128
    Jun 26, 2007
    chicagoland
    Nute, I have a quick question. My 80 200 2.8 always amazes me. It's really got me spoilled. Is the 35 70 2.8 on the same IQ level with the 80 200? I've heard alot of great things about this lens but I don't know if it can keep up with my favorite glass. Thanks.
     

  18. I can answer this. The 35-70 is a great lens. It produces wonderful contrasty images that are tack sharp. It hunts a bit in low light, and isn't quite wide enough for my taste - which are the reasons I sold mine. However, if I were starting my collection again, I'd pick up the 80-200, 35-70, and 20-35 and call it quits. Collectively, these lenses can be bought used for the cost of a new Beast or 70-200. Just my opinion.
     
  19. Nuteshack

    Nuteshack Guest

    i think Mark answered it pretty well, Jay...dig the 80-200 but my 35-70 is my favorite glass. for what the lens gives me, i find it wide enough. it can be a stinker in low light but i have my 35f2 and 50 1.4 for that and those darn things focus in the dark...;-))
     
  20. Nuteshack

    Nuteshack Guest

    amen Jimmy ...;-)
     
Loading...