Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Nikon 80-200mm F2.8 ED
Dieselstation Car Forums > Multimedia > Photography > Gear & Equipment
Hi all,

I am looking at upgrading my tele zoom from the very shitty 80-200mm f4.5-5.6 to the above mentioned lens. Anyone got any experience with it?
I am going to use it on my D700. i actually used a mates one at a wedding on Saturday, and was properly blown away by the lens. Obviously I loved the f2.8 f-stop compared to my shitty max f4.5 on the other lens. Also this 2.8 is super sharp, and the bokeh is beautiful.
I know that some people will tell me : "Buy the 70-200 VR", but I don't have the money for that lens, and to be honest, I can't justify the extra money(almost $1000) for the VR system (plus VR systems make me nauseous for some reason).I can get this lens cheaper new from Adorama than I can get it here second hand. I know it's a heavy lens and I can definitely live with that. Also I know about the AF system not being quite as fast as the 70-200s, or as the 80-200AF s.
Anyhting anyone can add about this lens.

I had it once but too bad it had front focus. So I sold it for cheaper than I bought. But for the time I had it, I liked it. I dont remember what aperture this was but this is a shot from it. If you don't shoot wedding then this lens should be okay.
I think this was shot with a D70s, could be wrong.
i had it, with my D70. very nice lens. solid, and produced great pictures. the AF wasnt the fastest but I was able to get decent shots at drift events. highly recommended if you dont want to shell out the extra 700 bucks for VR
I had that lens.I bought it as a back up to my Sigma 70-200 while it was out for repair..The 80-200 was great but I found the AF to slow for shooting motor-sports..asides from that it was a really sharp lens..But I liked my sigma 70-200 2.8 a lot AF..Sharp and even marco...I ended up picking up a Nikon 70-200 VR since I found one for a good price but out of the 3 Id say the Sigma is best mainly because of the cost factor..
Eric Mack
I have used all three (80-200 af-d, 80-200 af-s, 70-200 vr (i own it now))

the af-d version is fine if you're not shooting anything that's moving fast. I tried to shoot football with it and it was slow. Other then that, for the price, can't beat it I suppose (to stay w/ the Nikon brand)

the 80-200 af-s is fast, just like my 70-200 vr - and worth it.

the 70-200 is the cream of the crop obviously, but you can do just fine w/ the af-s version of the 80-200.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2018 Invision Power Services, Inc.