# Does anyone have the Nikon 80-200 push-pull version?



## ulrichsd (Jul 11, 2011)

Hi everyone,

I was thinking about getting a fast tele-zoom, like the 80-200mm.  I would use it for portraits and some indoor sports.  I know there is a few version of this lens, so it is either 
1) the newer 2-ring version ($1100 new, ~$900 used)
2) the older push-pull "D" version (~$600 used)
or 3) the even older push-pull non-D version (~$450 used)

so my question is, I know that people comment that the push-pull versions are slow to autofocus.  If you are focused close and need to focus something far it'd be slow, but I feel like if you are almost in focus for a shot and auto-focus, it should be pretty quick?

I'm not a pro, it'd just be for fun and not the end of the world if I missed a shot, I just don't want it to be worthless for indoor sports.

If you have the push-pull and would like to comment, I'd love to hear your input!
Thanks!
Scott


----------



## Kerbouchard (Jul 11, 2011)

It won't be useless for indoor sports...Pro's used it for indoor sports for more than 20 years.  I think the push-pull lenses are an excellent way for people on a budget to experience pro glass.  Is it the same as a 70-200 VRII 2.8?  No.  You get about 80% of the performance for about a quarter of the price.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 11, 2011)

I had two of the 80-200, pre-D models, both of the OLDEST style, ,with the clunky AF limiter system on a ring; there were two version of the pre-D, push-pull lens. Anyway, it was 10 years ago that I had them, and I used them on a professional-level camera, the Nikon D1, which had a pretty good AF system and a powerful AF motor with excellent torque. I had one nice sample, and later I had a REAL BEATER that had craters on the front element. The focus was reasonably fast on that "pro-level" body. Not as fast as the 70-200 VR, but not dog-slow either. The nice things about the "old" 80-200 was that it weighted about a pound less than later lenses--literally, almost a full 16 ounces lighter!!! It was also designed to be used as a hand-held lens--no tripod collar, and actually great ergonomics. One BIG ring, that does both zooming and focusing when in manual focus mode; as a manual focusing lens, the one-ring is actually more convenient than any two-ring lens! What kinda sucks is the way the old one-ring lens has to be taken out of AF mode; the switch is CLUNKY!!!

The 80-200 one ring is designed to be used as 1) a manual focusing lens or 2) as a totally AF lens. There is basically no override or touch-up of focusing.


----------



## ulrichsd (Jul 12, 2011)

Thanks guys, appreciate the feedback!

I got the impression that there were 2 types of the push-pull, a "D" version and a non-D version.
non-D ( notice how many people question that its not D) Nikon ED AF 80-200mm F/2.8 D Lens *MINT* - eBay (item 270776602099 end time Jul-10-11 09:14:51 PDT)
you can tell the "D" version with the D listed on the lens next to the "1:2.8"  http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/images1/80-200mm-f28-d/80-200mm-f28-d-950.jpg

So I understand that the D stands for distance which helps with flash metering or something.  Is a D lens worth an extra $200 over a non-D lens?  Or is it just fluff?


----------



## djacobox372 (Jul 12, 2011)

You should be able to buy a MINT 80-200mm f2.8 AF-D for $500 or less... I know that for sure because that's what I sold mine for, which was "like new."

The non-D versions are basically identical, but without distance information which isn't a big deal--the bigger issue with the non-d version is that it will be older, hence more likely to age-related problems. 

Optically all of the 80-200mm lenses are fantastic, there is no difference in image quality from the push-pull and the two-ring or AF-S version.  All are slightly superior to the older 70-200mm VR1, but not quite as good as the new VR2. 

Focus speed is slow, at least 1/3rd slower then the two ring, but that will only bother you if you're shooting action.  Mine never bothered me, I only upgraded because I found an AF-S version for less then $500. 

Here are some youtube videos of the focus speed of the different versions to compare:

single ring push-pull = http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99kSX7nxMr8

dual ring = YouTube - &#x202a;Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 AF Speed&#x202c;&rlm;

AFS = YouTube - &#x202a;Nikon 80-200mm AF-S focusing speed&#x202c;&rlm;


----------



## ulrichsd (Jul 12, 2011)

djacobox372 said:


> The non-D versions are basically identical, but without distance information which isn't a big deal--the bigger issue with the non-d version is that it will be older, hence more likely to age-related problems.
> 
> single ring push-pull = YouTube - &#x202a;Nikon 80-200 D / non-D Focus-Speed&#x202c;&rlm;
> 
> ...



Ha, I should have guessed that someone compared the autofocus speed of lenses on youtube! 

This is helpful...  From the first video, the push-pull D version looks like it focuses quite a bit faster than the non-D.  The other big issue is that the non-D version has a rotating front element, where the D push-pull has the fixed front element.  I'd be happy with the push-pull D version if I can find one for $500.

Thanks for the links!!
Scott


----------



## Derrel (Jul 12, 2011)

Uhmmmm....the "focus" comparison of the non-D and the AF-D lens both were done with the LENS CAP on...which does not actually show anything...the lens needs to actually have some information coming in in order to demonstrate "focusing" speed...

I do not agree that the 80-200 lenses are optically better than the 70-200 VR....no way...the version 1 70-200 VR is MUCH sharper at minimum focusing distance and at full extension than the older 80-200's one-ring, and the older 80-200's have more chromatic aberration than the 70-200 VR-1 does.


----------



## quiddity (Jul 12, 2011)

i have an older afd and agree that ca is more noticeable. i picked mine up on ebay for 450 i believe. it is awesome outdoor soccer lens and cant wait to try it for volleyball


----------



## ulrichsd (Jul 13, 2011)

Derrel said:


> Uhmmmm....the "focus" comparison of the non-D and the AF-D lens both were done with the LENS CAP on...which does not actually show anything...the lens needs to actually have some information coming in in order to demonstrate "focusing" speed...



Does it though?  I would think that with the lens cap on, the lens is just searching for a focus point and not findig anything.  Why would it focus slower or faster when looking for focus, just because the lens cap is on?  I'll have to try it when I get home tonight on one of my lenses...



Derrel said:


> I do not agree that the 80-200 lenses are optically better than the 70-200 VR....no way...the version 1 70-200 VR is MUCH sharper at minimum focusing distance and at full extension than the older 80-200's one-ring, and the older 80-200's have more chromatic aberration than the 70-200 VR-1 does.



I'm not going to lie, if I had my choice between either 70-200 or an 80-200, I'd take the 70-200.  I just don't want to spend nearly 2gs.  However, I've read that there is more vignetting on full frame for the 70-200 compared to the 80-200.  So to each there own...  And isn't the minimum focusing distance on the 80-200 closer than the 70-200?  So maybe not fair to compare sharpness at different focus distances...


----------



## ulrichsd (Jul 13, 2011)

OK, I did a test with my 70-300mm - with and without lens cap and they seem the same focus speed to me. 

However, I did notice that the focus speed when set at 70mm is WAY faster than the focus speed at 300mm. In the youtube video, it appears that the D lens the zoom ring is closer to the camera (200mm), where the non-D is pulled out (80mm). So maybe the focal length has an impact on the focus speed in the video?


----------



## Derrel (Jul 13, 2011)

Well, one thing I can state is that the focusing speed is determined by actually achieving a "focus" on a subject. One of the biggest keys to making many older lenses focus faster is to set the LIMITER switch, to prevent the lens from searching through distance ranges that are either 1) too close to your camera position or 2) beyond the intended range of your shooting session. With the limiter set to eliminate "close-in" objects, the range the lens will be focued through is narrowed down considerably, and that often actually leads to faster focus acquisition.

To me, focusing speed means how fast a lens actually achieves "focus". Not how long it takes for the lens to spin from MFD to Infinity, and then to beyond Infinity, as all ED-glass Nikkors focus "beyond infinity". In terms of real-world focusing speed, if the lens is receiving focusing data, meaning if the lens cap is OFF, the lens might achieve focus in as little as 1/5 of a second. If the lens cap is ON, it might take 2 seconds to drive the lens from MFD, to the farthest range of the focusing mechanism--but that time is in no way what I would call "focusing speed".

Focusing speed also can include a small amount of drive-read-drive-read,stop-correct, which might be mocked up by the sound dzzt-dzzt-dzzt, and mighty be as brief as 1/5 to as long as 3/4 second, let's say. The issue with screwdriver focusing Nikkor lenses is that the phase detection system needs actual DATA, from a target, to focus, and it's a process of data acquisiton,and comparison and analysis, which often involves some micro-hunting/overshooting/correcting. With the newer AF-S protocol, according to Thom Hogan, the camera's AF system can use information from the AF module to actually determine THE PRECISE, EXACT focusing distance needed, and send a discrete command which will focus the lens at the exact, precise distance, in one operation; in contrast, the screw-driver AF system is a matter of estimating, evaluating, and re-evaluating, and re-evaluating. OR DZZT-DZZT-DZZT-DZZT!

The absolute worst scenario is one in which a weak AF Module is used, and the camera can not get a focus lock, and then the lens follows its AF protocol of traversing ALLLLLLLLL the way back to Minimum Focus Distance, and re-initiating the process!!! In this kind of situation, you'll be very glad that you've set the focusing limiter, to cut down on the traverse range that is possible.

Some lenses which are infamous for "slow focusing", like the 80-400 VR Nikkor, are actually reasonably quick ***if*** the lens is pretty close to the needed focusing distance, and not wildly far off. Same goes with the 80-200 2.8 one-ring; my experience is that if the user has a cross-type AF point and the target is of reasonable contrast, the old one-ring will go dzzt-dzzt,and nail focus within a very brief time. VERY fast. MUCH faster than it will with the lens capped, and the limiter allowed to run the screw from MFD to beyond infinity. I just want to give you a real-world feel for how this old lens works. I have NOT used one on a newer,more-modern AF module camera...I got rid of mine well before the D300 and D3 hit the streets, and those bodies have very sophisticated AF modules--much more so than the old Nikon D1 had.


----------



## digital flower (Jul 14, 2011)

Last winter I bought a push-pull 80-200 for just under $500. It came in amazing condition in fact I have put more dings and scratches in it then the previous owner did in the years he had it. The auto focus seems fine to me (even on my D70s) especially on the D700 and overall I am really happy that I got it.


----------



## ulrichsd (Jul 14, 2011)

Derrel said:


> DZZT-DZZT-DZZT-DZZT!



Derrel, I love the comments if for no other reason, all the sound effects! 

It makes sense that the "hunt" for focus is going to take longer than the actual focus speed.  As for the limiter switch, the D version has one, where the non-D has some sort of limiting focus ring.  In the end, I think the D version is worth the extra just to avoid the rotating front element.

Digital Flower, thanks for the confirmation!  Hopefully I can find one in the condition yours is in!

Thanks everyone for the feedback!
Scott


----------



## djacobox372 (Jul 15, 2011)

The videos accurately display the differences in focus speed.  It's silly to presume that the elements move faster with the lens cap off--that's crazy talk.  Of course the speed difference is more noticeable when it's hunting then when it moves only a few mm and achieves focus.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 15, 2011)

djacobox372 said:


> The videos accurately display the differences in focus speed.  It's silly to presume that the elements move faster with the lens cap off--that's crazy talk.  Of course the speed difference is more noticeable when it's hunting then when it moves only a few mm and achieves focus.



Sorry, the videos show us NOTHING about "focus speed". The lens never achieves focus, because the AF module is not receiving any data. Use some logic. Here's an analogy: I jack a car's drive wheels OFF OF THE GROUND, and then rev the engine; using your faulty logic, the time the engine revvs for in seconds shows us the car's speed in the quarter mile. Right? Uh, sorry dude, but "ERRRR! Wrong answer!"

Unless a lens actually acquires a focus, it is IMPOSSIBLE to ascertain "focus speed". That is why when a web site or testing firm measures focusing speed, they time it from the initiation of the AF operation until a focus lock is achieved. Some dufus on YouTube showing "focusing speed" with the lens cap on is simply hilarious!!!


----------



## ulrichsd (Jul 28, 2011)

Thanks again everyone for the advice.  I picked up the AF-D push-pull version on Ebay for $500 with hood, case and 77mm UV filter.  Look forward to receiving it and testing it out.

Thanks!
Scott


----------



## djacobox372 (Jul 28, 2011)

ulrichsd said:


> Thanks again everyone for the advice.  I picked up the AF-D push-pull version on Ebay for $500 with hood, case and 77mm UV filter.  Look forward to receiving it and testing it out.Thanks!Scott


 Enjoy, I think you'll find that the image quality is just about as good as it gets when it comes to zoom lenses--you just have to put up with the focus speed, which isn't much to ask considering your paying 1/4 the price of a new 70-200 vr2


----------

