# Your thoughts on the nikon  80-200



## redtippmann (Nov 7, 2009)

I have been looking into faster telephoto lenses lately for photojournalism. I was looking at sigmas and tamrons (70-200 f/2.8) lenses but I would like to stick with nikon lenses. 

So I stumbled across a nikon 80-200 on craigslist. (for $400!(I think thats good)) So it seems to be a nice lens and I can really use the 2.8. But I watched the review from  nikon help hotline and they said its the 2nd worst lens (the 18-200 was first on their list) But Ken Rockwell said it was pretty good.

So anyone here have one? Anything else to add?


----------



## dhilberg (Nov 7, 2009)

Whoever says that the Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8 is Nikon's second worst lens is a bone head. It's one of their best, especially the last iteration of it (two-ring).

I own one (the two-ring, not the push-pull), and it's excellent. Do some Googling on it and you should find some very positive reviews.


----------



## redtippmann (Nov 7, 2009)

so i should see if its 2 ring? if its one ring is that BAD?


----------



## PatrickHMS (Nov 7, 2009)

I believe there is another very recent thread about this same lens....


----------



## Derrel (Nov 7, 2009)

Somebody is pulling your leg. Seriously.


----------



## PatrickHMS (Nov 8, 2009)

Derrel said:


> Somebody is pulling your leg. Seriously.


 

???

I don't get it?


----------



## benhasajeep (Nov 8, 2009)

There is a reason the lens is still being sold even though its replacement has been out for years!!!  It's a damned good lens.  Even the push pull was a good lens, just slower in focusing.  The lens is still available new!!  It's in a price range that competes with third party lenses.  If you can do without VR or OS/IS or what ever Sigma and the others call it.  It is a very good fast lens!  Had mine over 10 years now.  As good as the day I got it. :thumbup:

Mine is the newer version.


----------



## Garbz (Nov 8, 2009)

Someone is pulling the leg about this being the second worst. 

It's one of my most favourite and sharpest lenses. It's an investment worth making, a dream to use, and handles every situation except closest focus @ 200mm @ f/2.8 with very exceptionally good quality. Although it's very soft at the above setting, but that's the only setting.


----------



## PatrickHMS (Nov 8, 2009)

Guess I got suckered, but even I am not stupid enough to believe anything that Ken Rockwell says about anything.  And whomever quotes KR, or refers to his reviews doesn't have much credibility with me either.

I have had a copy of the 80-200 and liked it even if it was push-pull vesion, but the 18-200mm (even if IQ is good), wasn't one of my favorite lenses while I had it.

I just didn't see it as being THAT much better for the extra $$ than the 55-200mm VR and the 18-55mm were, and the $400 price difference makes changing lenses worth it to me.  And all my 52mm filters will fit the 55-200mm and the 18-55mm.

And my 55-200mm VR doesn't have that annoying rattle the 18-200mm did.

And my 55-200mm has never had lens creep.

And I LOVE my Sigma 18-50mm HSM Macro constant 2.8 I got to replace my 18-200.


----------



## redtippmann (Nov 8, 2009)

Yeah I like my 55-200VR but I need to shoot in low light allot so I think it would be worth it.


----------



## benhasajeep (Nov 8, 2009)

redtippmann said:


> Yeah I like my 55-200VR but I need to shoot in low light allot so I think it would be worth it.


 
Have a look at it and take a couple test shots at different ranges and settings.  And if its an older push pull.  Just go "Oh, its an OLD push pull model", " I was thinking it was the new design model",  "well I am not so sure".    You may get it for a better price.  :thumbup:


----------



## PhotoXopher (Nov 8, 2009)

See my recent thread here:
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...-know-nikon-80-200-push-pull-worth-400-a.html


----------



## benhasajeep (Nov 8, 2009)

N0YZE said:


> See my recent thread here:
> http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...-know-nikon-80-200-push-pull-worth-400-a.html


 

Seems to be a rush on the store for Nikon 80-200's lately.  Going to be a sad day when they do finally give up on it.  I have my equipment insured for replacement value.  On most of my D-type 2.8's that means the price of AF-S (and sometimes VR) lenses.  But the 80-200 f/2.8D is still made so no insurance check for a new 70-200 f/2.8AF-S VRII for me.   Not that I am planning a loss mind you.


----------



## ANDS! (Nov 8, 2009)

> And whomever quotes KR, or refers to his reviews doesn't have much credibility with me either.



Funny, since I find KR more consistent and useful than 90% of the posters on this forum.  Nevermind that KR loves the 80-200 (in all of its iterations), but hey - nothing wrong with false statements.

In any case there are TWO push-pull models.  One is slightly older than the other, but focuses slower.  Im sure the model you are going to look at is the Push-Pull as no one is selling any of the two-rings for anything less than 600.  Check here for what to look for to determine what model of the lens the fellow has, and barter appropriately.


----------



## redtippmann (Nov 8, 2009)

ive heard the Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 AF version auto focuses slow, would it be too slow for sports?


----------



## dhilberg (Nov 8, 2009)

redtippmann said:


> ive heard the Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 AF version auto focuses slow, would it be too slow for sports?



I have no problem shooting sports with my 80-200. I notice you have the 50mm f/1.8. For comparison, the 80-200 AF is just about as fast as the AF on my 50mm f/1.4. Just get it, you'll be happy I assure you.


----------



## redtippmann (Nov 8, 2009)

yeah the 1.8 seems really fast for me, and now I just need to sell the 55-200

EDIT: so is there any difference between the AF and AF-D that would be worth the little extra price?

This look like the one (the local seller already sold his): http://www.keh.com/OnLineStore/Prod...&BCC=&CC=&CCC=&BCL=&GBC=&GCC=&KW=nikon 80 200


----------



## ANDS! (Nov 8, 2009)

The focus speed is fine in brightly lit areas.  Inside (an arena for example) you're going to have to trade up ISO speed for quality.  However out in bright light where its easy to focus, you shouldn't have any problem.


----------



## PhotoXopher (Nov 8, 2009)

Ken Rockwell has a pretty nice write up on the various 80-200 f/2.8 models.

Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 History


----------



## ANDS! (Nov 8, 2009)

redtippmann said:


> yeah the 1.8 seems really fast for me, and now I just need to sell the 55-200
> 
> EDIT: so is there any difference between the AF and AF-D that would be worth the little extra price?
> 
> This look like the one (the local seller already sold his): KEH Camera: Nikon Auto Focus - Zoom Lenses - 80-200 F2.8 D MACRO ED (77) WITH HOOD, CAPS, 35MM SLR AUTO FOCUS ZOOM TELEPHOTO LENS



That is the push pull version, which is the version before the 2-ring one.  I balk a bit at the cost, but the optics are the same as the 2-ring.  Also, if you're like me, the 80-200 will be the lens you use the most when out roaming.  

The D difference is largely meaningless in the grand scheme of things and shouldn't be a factor in your purchase.  If you have the cash for the BGN one on KEH - go ahead and get it.


----------



## redtippmann (Nov 8, 2009)

I never used KEH, so do they have high standards? I was going to get the EX one but if there is little difference the BGN one would be great. 

I would want the get the D one because wouldn't it have better 3-D matrix metering?


----------



## ANDS! (Nov 8, 2009)

All the D does is add distance information to the camera.  Useful?  Yes.  Vital?  No.  The metering system on these cameras will do just fine without it.  Do not let that factor into your choice of lens.

As for KEH's rating system, if they list something as BGN it's probably what most sellers on forums list things as "Excellent".  Plus I swear they have a return policy if you aren't satisfied with the condition of the product.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 8, 2009)

There were two models made before the two-ring AF-D model. The original AF model was made from 1988 to 1992. The AF-D model was introduced in 1993. If you want 3-D Matrix metering, you'll want a D-compatible lens. I have owned two of the first version, the pre-D model. The biggest difference in operation is that the *original* AF model has a funky, three-position AF limiter which is a ring mounted on the front of the lens barrel,and it must be pulled forward and twisted to set the AF limiter.

The first two versions of this 80-200 AF lens have very SLOW autofocusing, even on a professional level D1 or D2 series body.

A BGN lens from KEH is in rough cosmetic shape,and might have scratches on the glass, and it *will* be rough-looking. A KEH BGN lens is in no way shape or form an 'excellent' condition lens from other vendors. Other vendors use the term Ug or Ugly for what KEH calls BGN. A BGN lens from KEH has always seen extended, heavy, significant use,and will look well-worn. KEH has a conservative grading system, but a BGN 80-200 AF (pre-D) will be a 21 to 17 year old lens, no matter what. On a 21 to 17 year old zoom lens, a BGN sample is not what you want to buy.

And, if you want a lens for active sports shooting, the original two 80-200 AF-D screwdriver lenses are simply not the best choices. Why? AF and AF-D uses a screw driven mechanism where AF is determined by trial and error; those who know about the AF-S protocol know that it uses a software program that can analyze the incoming AF data and can predict the exact,specific AF point,which is something the AF and AF-D protocolc can NOT do. The Nikon AF-S protocol has been revised many times,and it arrives at the correct focus point based on data analysis and has predictive AF capability; the older,screwdriver protocol has no predictive capabilities, and is purely trial-and-error focus,delivered through a series of shafts and cams in the lens. Source for this? Nikon technical guru Thom Hogan's writings describing why AF-S and screwdriver focusing have wildly different field performance characteristics.

The D2h has a high-torque AF motor in it, but the first two versions of this lens, the one-ring or push-pull lenses have very slow AF, on any Nikon body.


----------



## redtippmann (Nov 8, 2009)

so what would a good lens be? (for around the same price)


----------



## ANDS! (Nov 8, 2009)

> A KEH BGN lens is in no way shape or form an 'excellent' condition lens from other vendors.



Reread what I wrote.



> so what would a good lens be? (for around the same price)



The lens you're already looking at.  This shouldn't be a hard choice, but I know it is.  There are a lot of words in the previous posters reply and for surely words equates knowledge (somewhere).  But for what you are trying to do, the difference is negligiable.  It really is.  If you are unsure, just hop on FredMiranda.com and look at the reviews of the 80-200 (all versions are mixed in but you'll be able to tell who has what lens), or simply do a search on Flickr.com to see what people are accomplishing DESPITE the supposed physical limitations of the lens is.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 8, 2009)

KEH.com's very own definition of a BGN lens: 

"Bargain" Shows more than average wear. May have dents, dings and/or brassing and finish loss. Glass may have marks and/or blemishes that should not affect picture quality*."

When you get to the brass finish on a Nikkor lens, it has been used and used HARD. When you buy a 16-element lens that has "dents", "dings/and or brassing", you are buying a lens that has been used hard, or carelessly, or both.

ANDS sounds like a 29-year old know it all. I know you, the original poster, are very young, and are looking for sound advice. You're not going to get that from ANDS. He's young, but he acts like he's been around the block. There is absolutely no sense in handicapping yourself with a 21- to 17-year old, outdated, beat-up 80-200 One Ring zoom if you want it for sports shooting. Nikon abandoned the design more than a decade ago. The price is low, and the technology dates to the late 1980's. Again, this is an OLD lens design and one thing I have learned about buying used gear is, "buy condition". Old, worn, brassy, dinged-up 20+ year old zooms? Not a good value; since the design is so old, excellent examples do not cost much more than thrashers. Once again, "buy condition". 

"Bargain" Shows more than average wear. May have dents, dings and/or brassing and finish loss. Glass may have marks and/or blemishes that should not affect picture quality*." ANDS sure knows what he's talking about if he states that is what others try to use as their criteria describing an "excellent" lens! Not.


----------



## ANDS! (Nov 8, 2009)

> As for KEH's rating system, if they list something as BGN it's probably what most *sellers on forums* list things as "Excellent".



Bolded to help you out.


----------



## jdag (Nov 8, 2009)

The Nikon 80-200 AF-D is outstanding.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...sigma-70-200-f2-8-vs-nikon-80-200-f2-8-a.html


----------



## PatrickHMS (Nov 8, 2009)

ANDS! said:


> > As for KEH's rating system, if they list something as BGN it's probably what most *sellers on forums* list things as "Excellent".
> 
> 
> 
> Bolded to help you out.


 
Seriously doubt that, even if you say probably, indicating that you don't really know.

I have seen KEH's stuff, and BGN means BGN, not excellent. They are honest sellers, and describe their items as such.

Sorry.


----------



## redtippmann (Nov 8, 2009)

My brain hurts 

But thanks to both ANDS! and derrel

I will take both of your advice. I extrapolated (see I know big words) from your posts that I should get a Good condition (EX from KEH)80-200 f/2.8 AF-D from HERE 

Now I just need to figure out how to pay for it.


----------



## ANDS! (Nov 8, 2009)

> Seriously doubt that, even if you say probably, indicating that you don't really know.



I have bought from KEH (long ago) as well as individuals selling items on internet forums.  Thank you though for presuming one way or another.  Now had I qualified my statment with IS instead of PROBABLY, you'd have some basis for your response.  I didnt, and wouldn't.  Thankfully a need to post is rarely tempered by common sense or else little would ever get said on a message board.  

As to the OP, I would actually check and see if anyone is selling an 80-200 on DigitalWeddingForums.com - I've bought more than a few items from there, and usually you can get some great deals.  I actually bought my 80-200 2.8D for about 600 bucks; you just have to keep an eye out on various places.  800/900 I suppose isn't a bad deal, but there are certainly better ones.


----------



## PhotoXopher (Nov 8, 2009)

I was in the same boat and did the 18 months no interest deal at Best Buy (did this with my D90 as well). Cost me a little more but I also have the warranty to go along with it, peace of mind I guess.


----------



## ANDS! (Nov 8, 2009)

N0YZE said:


> I was in the same boat and did the 18 months no interest deal at Best Buy (did this with my D90 as well). Cost me a little more but I also have the warranty to go along with it, peace of mind I guess.



Oh damn.  How much did they charge there?  They had the 80-200?  That's pretty amazing.


----------



## PatrickHMS (Nov 8, 2009)

ANDS! said:


> > Seriously doubt that, even if you say probably, indicating that you don't really know.
> 
> 
> 
> I have bought from KEH (long ago) as well as individuals selling items on internet forums. Thank you though for presuming one way or another. Now had I qualified my statment with IS instead of PROBABLY, you'd have some basis for your response. I didnt, and wouldn't. Thankfully a need to post is rarely tempered by common sense or else little would ever get said on a message board.


 
I qualified my response with the fact that I noticed that you said probably. But I know better than to accept what you said in that post I responded to.

I personally know people at who currently work at KEH, have been to their location here in Metro Atlanta, not that long ago, and what they list as BGN is not something that anyone else would be able to (anywhere close to accurately, not even probably) describe as excellent unless they were intentionally misrepresenting or outright lying, and I am not going to claim that all or most people do that.

If something they sell at KEH is better than a BGN lens, why would they list it as BGN? Seems logical that they would categorize it accurately so they can list it for more money.

I'm done here, can't rationalize with this irrational line of thought.


----------



## benhasajeep (Nov 9, 2009)

redtippmann said:


> My brain hurts
> 
> But thanks to both ANDS! and derrel
> 
> ...


 
If you call KEH and ask about a specific lens. They will give you the rundown on the lens. If its listed as bargain they will tell you why (glass marks, brassing, dents, ...etc). If they say the lens works (AF) it will work. Obviously I would pick a two ring over a push pull first choice. But I would not make that a limitation. The performance of the lenses optically are the same. I have "heard" focusing is quicker on the newer version. But how fast do you need to AF? For me the price of the EX and EX+ are too close to new prices. I would just order a new one. I have used KEH half a dozen times and trust them. But if your going to pay 85-90% of new. Might as well get a new one.

If you can pick up a good working push pull for $400 and are on a budget. I would not think twice about it. Also, you can most likely recoup most if not all if you wanted to upgrade in the future! 

It sounds like your set on an 80-200 and that sounds good. Now just have to find one.


----------



## Garbz (Nov 9, 2009)

redtippmann said:


> ive heard the Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 AF version auto focuses slow, would it be too slow for sports?



The focusing speed of AF lenses largely depends on the camera's AF motor. On the D80 it feels a little slow at times. On the D200 it is very fast, however it has it's own issues for those who haven't used a non AF-S lens before. Due to the gearing of the AF D lens when the autofocus is activated you feel quite a significant torque action on the camera body. Nothing bad, just something that first timers may not expect.

I have used this lens quite successfully tracking the ball on a football field, coming straight towards me behind the goal posts.


----------



## ANDS! (Nov 9, 2009)

> If something they sell at KEH is better than a BGN lens, why would they list it as BGN?



Jesus Christ.  Why wouldn't they?  Are you really arguing about a statement indirectly noting that the standards for online retailers are perhaps more strict than what private party sellers might consider to be so?  My god.  This is beyond asinine.


----------



## PatrickHMS (Nov 9, 2009)

ANDS! said:


> > If something they sell at KEH is better than a BGN lens, why would they list it as BGN?
> 
> 
> 
> *Jesus Christ*. Why wouldn't they? Are you really arguing about a statement indirectly noting that the standards for online retailers are perhaps more strict than what private party sellers might consider to be so? *My god*. This is beyond asinine.


 
I am done with you!

You choice as to how you use some names in this last post is offensive to me.

Like I said earlier, I cannot rationalize with this irrational line of thought.


----------



## ANDS! (Nov 9, 2009)

Oh sweet jesus do you promise?  Lordy I can't go back and forth with you - you say you're out, then you come back in!  Praise his name - let it be real this time!


----------



## PatrickHMS (Nov 9, 2009)

Been doing some reading, other postings here on TPF.

No WONDER Mr. ANDS! has 1,998 postings... Have searched and briefly read several hundred of them, enough to realize that

*HE ARGUES WITH EVERYBODY!*

And then seems to like to turn the dialog into rude, personal attacks, name calling and insults.

But he is educated, with a better than average vocabulary.

And he has 8 "thanks"... (2 more than I do)

wowee!


----------



## redtippmann (Nov 9, 2009)

benhasajeep said:


> redtippmann said:
> 
> 
> > My brain hurts
> ...



Thanks! If the af speed (on the one ring) would be similar to the af on my 55-200 that would be fine. I just wish I could use it before I bought it. 

But did someone say that KEH's policy is if I don't like it I can return it. Is that true?


----------



## PhotoXopher (Nov 9, 2009)

Let me google that for you


----------



## PatrickHMS (Nov 9, 2009)

In my personal experience, KEH is pretty much just as good and as reputable as either Adorama or B&H.

Any of the above three should take good care of you.


----------



## ANDS! (Nov 9, 2009)

redtippmann said:


> Thanks! If the af speed (on the one ring) would be similar to the af on my 55-200 that would be fine. I just wish I could use it before I bought it.
> 
> But did someone say that KEH's policy is if I don't like it I can return it. Is that true?



14 Days.  You'll be fine.  If anything you'll want to upgrade the camera once you slap the 80-200 on the D50.  Man I can't imagine that ol' gal even supporting the beast that is the 80-200.


----------



## redtippmann (Nov 9, 2009)

yeah ill probably use the D2H with that lens


----------



## In2daBlue (Nov 17, 2009)

I shot all kinds of photojournalism assignments with my 80-200 for years. I mean years. It's a great lens. Is it perfect? Nope. Would I prefer to have the 70-200? You bet. But, for the money, I can't think of a better lens you could buy. It's a work horse.


----------

