The 80-200 F/2.8 still delivers.......

Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
1,485
Location
Florida
It doesn't have the fastest focusing, or VR or the nano coatings of the newer versions, but it still delivers professional results. And if you're making a living shooting events it makes a terrific back-up lens to the VRI or VRII for a reasonable cost. All the following were shot between F/2.8~F/4 handheld

5544925418_5e9cb01b5d_b.png
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


5544930076_08feba6855_b.png
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


View attachment 870535
 
Joined
Jan 25, 2009
Messages
1,496
Great shots, and I'll agree that the older 80-200 / 2.8 is a very fine lens!
 
Joined
Jan 13, 2009
Messages
164
Location
Seattle, WA
Stunning model and images. The AFS or AFD? Also, would you mind sharing some more details, like what other equipment you used? Camera body, tripod, lighting (flash)? Thanks.
 
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,507
Great shots from a great lens.

Maybe I got a lemon of a VRI, but frankly, it didn't compare to the wide open sharpness of my 80-200. So I sold it. But after 13 years of use, I still have my 80-200. :smile:
 
Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Messages
1,959
Location
Australia
Maybe I got a lemon of a VRI, but frankly, it didn't compare to the wide open sharpness of my 80-200. So I sold it. But after 13 years of use, I still have my 80-200. :smile:

when i got my 80-200D (15 odd years back) i was shifting from an FM2 to an F4 and the zoom replaced my much loved 105mm f2.5 and 200mm f4.

initially very sceptical, i was blown away with the performance of the 80-200 and still use it today on a D700.

it's been smashed and bashed around in press scrums and on the sidelines of sports matches and it just keeps on keeping on. sure, it's a beefy piece of glass, but it's solid.

i actually sent it in for service for the first time a couple of years ago. not because there was anything wrong with it, i just figured after a dozen years of service it might like some tlc.
 
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
1,485
Location
Florida
The AFS or AFD? Also, would you mind sharing some more details, like what other equipment you used? Camera body, tripod, lighting (flash)? Thanks.

sorry, this is the AF-D 2 ring version, D80 and 80-200, the shutter speeds were around 1/400s, with decent handholding technique VR wasn't needed. No strobes, all natural light, but I did try to make use of the light reflected off the water. #3 was cropped by about 20% . The 80-200 is also more compact which makes it easier to handhold, although it weighs a ton.
 
Joined
Mar 15, 2009
Messages
7,500
Location
Los Angeles, CA
I'm thinking about buying an 80-200 2-ring and testing it out alongside the 70-200 VRII. If I like it enough, I'll prob sell the VRII and keep the 80-200.
 
Joined
Mar 31, 2007
Messages
3,533
Location
Thornhill, Ontario, a suburb of Toronto
It doesn't have the fastest focusing, or VR or the nano coatings of the newer versions, but it still delivers professional results. And if you're making a living shooting events it makes a terrific back-up lens to the VRI or VRII for a reasonable cost.

I don't understand your point.
The lens was capable of giving wonderful results in the hands of a good photographer when it was first introduced, so why would you be surprised that years later it still does?
Once a good lens, always a good lens. And "the fastest focusing" or "VR" or "Nano-coatings" (whatever the heck they are) on the newer optics aren't going to change that.
When I read posts like these I always wonder how those of us who learned photography in a previous century ever managed to take any decent photos at all with the laughably out-dated, horribly backward gear we had to use then.
Oh. And as an aside, I think the shots you posted are excellent.
 
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
1,485
Location
Florida
I don't understand your point.
The lens was capable of giving wonderful results in the hands of a good photographer when it was first introduced, so why would you be surprised that years later it still does?
Once a good lens, always a good lens. And "the fastest focusing" or "VR" or "Nano-coatings" (whatever the heck they are) on the newer optics aren't going to change that.
When I read posts like these I always wonder how those of us who learned photography in a previous century ever managed to take any decent photos at all with the laughably out-dated, horribly backward gear we had to use then.

Sorry, the point I was trying to make was: don't overlook the 80-200 just because it's an older design, the optics are pro quality.

However, VR and AF-S are critical features for sports photographers, and I can attest to the superb focus tracking capabilities of AF-S and the VR ability to shoot handheld down to 1/50s when tripods are impractical. But if the person doesn't normally shoot in such demanding situations, I suggest not overlooking the 80-200mm.
 
Joined
Mar 31, 2007
Messages
3,533
Location
Thornhill, Ontario, a suburb of Toronto
Sorry, the point I was trying to make was: don't overlook the 80-200 just because it's an older design, the optics are pro quality.However, VR and AF-S are critical features for sports photographers, and I can attest to the superb focus tracking capabilities of AF-S and the VR ability to shoot handheld down to 1/50s when tripods are impractical. But if the person doesn't normally shoot in such demanding situations, I suggest not overlooking the 80-200mm.

OK then.
When you phrase it that way, I see your point and can agree.
I have the relatively rare (only about 1500 made) zoom-Nikkor 80~200 2.8 ED AIS manual focus lens (released in 1982) and it is sharp as a tack, and excellent for street shooting, even hand-held.
 
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