Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 D AF-S IF-ED Lens?

Joined
Apr 3, 2018
Messages
452
I have 4 lenses, only one of which is a zoom (the Nikon 24-85mm AF-S 1:3.5 - 4.5G ED). Things just turned out that way, the others being a Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G (everyone should have a nifty fifty), the wonderful Nikkor 300mm f/4E PF ED VR (replaced a Tamron 150-600 that had become too heavy for comfort), and a Tamron 90 mm f/2.8 macro (because it's a macro ...).

I like the primes - the foot zoom works just fine in most instances - but have been looking at plugging the gap in the 85 to 300 range, the candidates being another prime (the Nikkor180mm f/2.8) or possibly something in the 70-200mm zoom range such as the Nikkor 70-200mm f/4 G ED VR or the f/2.8 in the same range.

I buy most of my gear from Wex Photographic (in the UK) and have had some good deals from their used range, and when looking there, found this: the venerable 80-200mm f2.8 D AF-S IF-ED in 9- condition and around third of the price of the modern zooms in the same range.

I'd appreciate feedback from any Cafe members who have (or had) this lens before taking the plunge. The absence of VR doesn't bother me, but I'm not so sure about the weight, with the 70-200 f/4 being substantially lighter (850g) than the f/2.8 70-200 (1540g) and the 80-200 at 1470).
 
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,473
Location
Lompoc, CA
The 80-200 is a fantastic lens, and I think it is an excellent value today, esp. if you aren't hung up on VR. I "upgraded" from the 70-200 VR-I a few years ago and am very happy. But, if weight is your priority than the 70-200 f/4 is self-recommending. I don't think you can go wrong with either, but lens lust is all about trade-offs, you just have to pick the one that works best for you.
 
Joined
Mar 31, 2007
Messages
1,477
Location
New Hampshire
I have one (80-200 AF-S) and it's HEAVY! And big... I'd stay away. I never use it. Get the 180 2.8 I have one and love it. It's small and crazy sharp. You already have a 300, and a Tammy 90 2.8. Get a 180 2.8 and you're covered. The 180 really is a great lens. I'll never part with mine.
 
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
3,599
Location
Massachusetts
Real Name
David
The 80-200 AF-S is and was a very good lens. It is the biggest and heaviest of the 70/80-200 lenses though so that's something to consider. Add to that they are now at least 15 years since they stopped production of them in 2004. I'd be concerned about the AF-S motor.

If you're considering the 180mm. I'd also consider the 80-200 AF, what's referred to as the two-ring version. It's actually still in production, so servicing is not an issue. I've owned both the 80-200mm and the 180mm, nothing wrong with either, and the 180mm definitely has the size and weight advantage.
 
Joined
Oct 9, 2005
Messages
22,568
Location
Moscow, Idaho
The 80-200 AF-S is and was a very good lens. It is the biggest and heaviest of the 70/80-200 lenses though so that's something to consider. Add to that they are now at least 15 years since they stopped production of them in 2004. I'd be concerned about the AF-S motor.
Spot on. It was my go-to lens for years--landscapes, people, animals. I sold it to fund a new camera, and soon was lusting for it, so I got the f/4 VR 70-200.
 
Joined
Mar 16, 2005
Messages
3,056
Location
Alaska
I have 2 80-200 f2.8 AFS lenses, and one 70-200 VR1, they are each excellent lenses. I shot with the 80-200 for many years, and have some excellent images with that lens which sold very well. I have used AF since it was first introduced, and I have never worn out an AF motor. I have destroyed lens and camera mounts, broken cameras and lenses beyond repair, but have never had an AF motor quit.
 
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
3,599
Location
Massachusetts
Real Name
David
Spot on. It was my go-to lens for years--landscapes, people, animals. I sold it to fund a new camera, and soon was lusting for it, so I got the f/4 VR 70-200.
If @billtils doesn't need f/2.8 than the 70-200 f/4 is great. But it will run you a bit more than either the 180mm or 80-200mm. On an FX body I'd go for the f/4 without thinking about, on DX I'd have to think about it. I did the reverse when I went DX to FX, I jumped at the chance to trade my f/2.8 for the f/4.
 
Joined
Mar 31, 2007
Messages
1,477
Location
New Hampshire
I have 2 80-200 f2.8 AFS lenses, and one 70-200 VR1, they are each excellent lenses. I shot with the 80-200 for many years, and have some excellent images with that lens which sold very well. I have used AF since it was first introduced, and I have never worn out an AF motor. I have destroyed lens and camera mounts, broken cameras and lenses beyond repair, but have never had an AF motor quit.
I wasn't as lucky (80-200 AF-s). $400-. for a new motor. It was fine for 2 years... Crapped out again. It takes great photos, but you have to focus manually. Anybody who wants it for parts shoot me a PM and $150 and I'll eat the shipping. :(
 
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
6,068
Location
Upstate SC
The big “plus” for the AF-S 80-200 is its rendering of images. That was one of those Nikkor lenses that just gave the images a sort of magical quality. I skipped the first VR 70-200, but got the second. I most definitely increased the keeper rate with the VRII lens, but it renders a more sterile image quality. If you could get a stellar deal on a pristine sample, I’d probably recommend it. I’d stay away from anything other than stellar and pristine, though.
 
Joined
Mar 20, 2017
Messages
1,112
Location
Central Ohio
Real Name
Andrew
I had a screw drive version of the 80-200/2.8D. It was a great lens and I really didn't want to get rid of it. I had to because I needed VR and got the Tamron 70-200/2.8 VC to replace it.

Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8

I've heard that the 80-200 AF-S had some focus motor issues. I'd probably skip it and look elsewhere.

If you need f/2.8 and don't want to pay Nikon 70-200/2.8 prices, then seriously consider the Tamron 70-200/2.8 VC G2. It is bigger and heavier but it focus' well and I like the rendering. Mine is sharp wide open at f/2.8.

If you don't need f/2.8, the Nikon 70-200/4 is a good option, but also consider the Nikon 70-300/4.5-5.6 ED AF-P VR. I just used it again this weekend and it reminded me just how good it is when you don't need f/2.8. Great VR, fast to focus, sharp. Also, much more reasonably priced.

Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 AF-P ED VR
 
Joined
Jan 3, 2007
Messages
2,924
Location
Tacoma, WA
Real Name
Ken St John
I had one of the old 80-200 f2.8D AF push/pull Nikkors and absolutely loved it.

It gave me one of the best images I've ever taken of my wife ....
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


It's the one Nikon lens I now miss as the equivalent Canon (EF70-200 f4) although sharp as a tack, just doesn't have the same "feeling" to it. I think I remember reading one time that the older film lenses had lead and some other compounds not found in today's glass, and that may contribute to the difference. I don't know, I'm no expert. But this was a great lens for me!!

Cheers!!

Ken
 
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
10,594
Location
Holyoke, MA USA
I had one of the old 80-200 f2.8D AF push/pull Nikkors and absolutely loved it.

It gave me one of the best images I've ever taken of my wife ....
View attachment 1641097

It's the one Nikon lens I now miss as the equivalent Canon (EF70-200 f4) although sharp as a tack, just doesn't have the same "feeling" to it. I think I remember reading one time that the older film lenses had lead and some other compounds not found in today's glass, and that may contribute to the difference. I don't know, I'm no expert. But this was a great lens for me!!

Cheers!!

Ken
From a focus-speed and image quality one of the two best Nikon teles I've ever owned .... the other was the original 300mm f/2.8 AF-S lens. I still have it. These do have that "magical" quality that simply results in photos that are tremendously easy to look at. But it is heavy ... and large. I've given it its own bag. I'd say if you are going to shoot sports or wildlife with it, the 80-200 afs is the lens to get. If you want just a more all-round lens probably the much lighter f/4 is best for this purpose.
 
Joined
Jan 22, 2019
Messages
1,069
Location
St. Charles, IL
Real Name
Andy
the venerable 80-200mm f2.8 D AF-S IF-ED in 9- condition and around third of the price of the modern zooms in the same range.
I strongly recommend this lens - I have owned and used it extensively. Do make certain that it is truly the IF-ED with a serial number starting with "2" and the information plate just forward of the tripod collar, not further forward near the distance window). IMO, the IF-ED is optically on par with the VR2. At faster shutter speeds and/or shooting with proper support, the results from the 80-200/2.8 IF-ED are as sharp as those from the VR2. To see a substantial improvement, you'd have to spring for the latest "E" version.

Be sure to avoid any with inoperative AF motors, as replacement parts are very scarce. All of the 2-ring 80-200 lenses are prone to focus ring hangups due to an internal ribbon cable that comes loose, but that is a fairly easy fix. In fact, I made a video detailing the DIY repair.

 
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
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom