# If you have the Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-D... Please read. I need your help!



## Nykon (Jun 20, 2011)

Hi,

I am trying to figure out if I am having issues with my lens, or if this is just the way it is. I'm not a pro, but have been into this consumer/semi-pro stuff for a little bit. I bought this lens a while back and cant seem to get any really sharp shots consistently. I shoot free hand on a D90 with it. I use anything from spot metering to average. Shutter speeds are between 200 - 2,000 at all apertures. My ISO is usually set between 100 to 400. I use to get some seriously sharp shots back in the day, at least more often than I am now. I sent my lens to B&H where I bought it from for repair, and it just came back with some disappointment. I didn't get any documentation from them stating if anything had been done to the lens, it could have just sat there for all I know. So I need some help from you if you have this lens. I was hoping for some 100% crops from you without any editing, shooting in the ranges that I mentioned and free hand.  I know my kit lens and 35mm f/1.8 are making some sharper shots than this 80-200, and that shouldnt be right.

Thanks in advance!


----------



## orb9220 (Jun 20, 2011)

All mine are handheld with this lens. It does require a more critical stance and technique holding and breath control. Also some softness for many at f2.8. Found tack sharp by f4. And uncomfortable in shooting less than the focal length. So at 200mm looking at 1/250th as the very minimum with good technique.

Can't really determine what the problem is unless we can see some of your pics to analyze.
.


----------



## Nykon (Jun 20, 2011)

I cant get the pics to load on here nor have it accept my URL to the site. So here is the Picasa link to where the pics are. Pics say undefined when uploading, and then they say my link is invalid - go figure! 

https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/sre...31665&authkey=Gv1sRgCMiR0a-jmZ_Rcg&feat=email


----------



## djacobox372 (Jun 20, 2011)

That lens should be very sharp, even wide open--tack sharp at f4.I wouldn't expect any zoom to outperform a prime, but if your kit lens is sharper--there's a problem.The best way to determine if it's the lens or the camer is to compare it to another 80-200mm or even a 70-200mm vr (mount could be misaligned which causes more problems with longer glass).Keep in mind that the vr2 is slightly better wide open but all the 2.8 lenses in this class should be comparable at f4 and above.


----------



## djacobox372 (Jun 20, 2011)

Nykon said:


> I cant get the pics to load on here nor have it accept my URL to the site. So here is the Picasa link to where the pics are. Pics say undefined when uploading, and then they say my link is invalid - go figure! https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/sre...31665&authkey=Gv1sRgCMiR0a-jmZ_Rcg&feat=email


Focus seems to have been missed on some of those shots (dogs collar is in tighter focus then his face, babies shoulder is in better focus.) although I can't tell if that's the only problem, Contrast is also pretty horrible, something else might be wrong


----------



## Kerbouchard (Jun 20, 2011)

Keep in mind that the 80-200 2.8's were pro lenses for a lot of years.  They are tack sharp when in good condition, but a lot of them were beaten up and tossed around for a good many years.  If you bought it used, there is a chance that is what you are running into.

If you bought it new, then it comes down to tolerances.  During the manufacturing process, everything is not exact.  There are allowable ranges and if it falls within that range, it is sent out.  Now, if your camera body is say -10 in the tolerance range and your lens is +10 in the tolerance range, than you are a happy camper because it winds up being perfect, but if your camera body is -10 and your lens is -10, it could be very difficult to achieve proper focus.

An easy test is to take one shot in live view mode and one shot shooting regularly.  Ideally, from a tripod, in identical lighting, same distance, blah blah blah.  If the live view shot is good and your regular autofocus is not, than you have a front or back focus issue.  If they are both bad, then something may be wrong with your lens.

If you don't have a tripod or anyway to duplicate the shot, just take 10 or so shots each way.  Count how many are good from each test.  It isn't an ideal test method, but it should be able to give you a good idea and let you know if more testing is called for.


----------



## mrpink (Jun 20, 2011)

I'll play....

Taken at 125mm 1/320sec f/4.0 ISO 400.  SOOC (raw processed, nothing else done)




DSC_1663 by Matt Francosky, on Flickr

100%(ish) crop of focal area....




DSC_1663-2 by Matt Francosky, on Flickr

Taken with a D90, center weighted metering, AF-S single spot focus, hand held.

FYI, the manual focus ring on my 80-200 is stripped out so auto focus is the only way I can use it (purchased it that way).  Other than that it is a perfect lens.







p!nK


----------



## flea77 (Jun 20, 2011)

I have to agree here, I use this lens frequently and it is fast and tack sharp at f4, and almost that sharp at f2.8. This is about the only lens I own that I will happily shoot wide open at any time with no thought because it is just that good. I have mostly primes and althought when I really zoom in to the image I can see the prime is sharper I am really having to hunt for it. Beautiful 11x14s and 16x20s from this lens.

Allan


----------



## ultimadrift (Jun 20, 2011)

Have you tried manual focus? Your lens might be back/front focusing?


----------



## fudsylow (Jun 21, 2011)

I have it too... no problems.. steady hand required at longer lengths of course.. I would take it somewhere, or send it somewhere for a check of all it's calibration measurements. Ask for the report, before and after... worth paying for.
Hope you get it sorted, as it really is a beautiful lens.. one of my favourites in my bag


----------



## Nykon (Jun 23, 2011)

Thanks for all the replies! I've been sick so I havent been on here. I have noticed that the camera likes to focus on an area behind what I am shooting at. That was my reason for sending it out for repair to B&H. I am going to try all the options mentioned and see what happens. I'll let you all know soon.


----------



## Nykon (Jun 23, 2011)

Kerbouchard said:


> Keep in mind that the 80-200 2.8's were pro lenses for a lot of years.  They are tack sharp when in good condition, but a lot of them were beaten up and tossed around for a good many years.  If you bought it used, there is a chance that is what you are running into.
> 
> If you bought it new, then it comes down to tolerances.  During the manufacturing process, everything is not exact.  There are allowable ranges and if it falls within that range, it is sent out.  Now, if your camera body is say -10 in the tolerance range and your lens is +10 in the tolerance range, than you are a happy camper because it winds up being perfect, but if your camera body is -10 and your lens is -10, it could be very difficult to achieve proper focus.
> 
> ...



I bought the lens new from B&H, and I tried shooting handheld about 15 shots in live mode, then in normal. All came out the same - horrible.


----------



## Nykon (Jun 23, 2011)

So here is another update. I got a hold of B&H again, and they were basically no help to me, and will also not be shopping with them anymore because of crappy customer service. So I called Nikon and asked them about the issue, and they told me that the D90 doesn't have a fine tuning mechanism for the focus which I guess some of the other newer cameras do. I guess it makes sense as to why this is happening. I know I have gotten some really clean shots with this lens, its just not consistent. Maybe 20% are tack sharp.


----------



## Mike_E (Jun 23, 2011)

Did you try just using one focus point?


----------



## orb9220 (Jun 23, 2011)

Yep wondering on your settings as used AF-S and center AF point only on mine.
.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Jun 23, 2011)

I used to own this lens, but sold it because I never used it. The closer you focus, the worse it gets, at min. focusing distance, it sucks. Mine was never real good at f/2.8, whenever I needed a telephoto I always ended up renting the 70-200VR anyway.


----------



## Nykon (Jun 23, 2011)

I have tried all three AF-C, AF-S, and AF-A, and tried using all the setting on the focus points and letting it find its own focus point just to see how sharp it would come out on its own. Nothing was really anything good, nor much better than any of the others.


----------



## Kowalski (Jul 29, 2011)

I have the 80-200 2.8 AF-D, and it backfocuses if shooting from less than about 15' away from the subject between 135-200mm.  The backfocusing is worse the closer you get. At the minimal focusing distance of 4.9', the subject is totally out of focus like in some of your flower images, where the leaves behind the flower are in perfect focus. I have a D7000 which has AF Fine tune, but even cranked to the max setting of -20, it will only correct for backfocus up to about 11-12' away. Anything less than 10' and the lens still backfocuses a little - maybe about 1/4" from the focus point. Based on your photos, it looks like you are shooting from within 15', hence the backfocusing. The backfocusing issue with this lens has been well documented for many years in different forums, and Nikon is aware of this issue with this lens. If you look on page 229 of your D90 manual, point 8 tells you to manually focus when zoomed all the way in at minimum focus distance. This issue is just unfortunately part of the old lens design - I don't believe the intended market for this lens, journalists and other pros, would normally shoot at 200mm from short distances.  Knowing its limitations, I don't use this lens for subjects less than 10' away.  Other than this quirk, images are in focus and very sharp. 

So the bad news is, this lens won't work for you if you plan on using it to shoot between 135-200mm at close distances. One solution is to use Live View to focus as it is very accurate (uses a different AF system), but it is slow and not always practical to use for moving subjects. If you ever upgrade to a camera with AF fine tune, you can fix the problem to a degree so you can at least AF properly from 11' away, but it won't go away, unless future camera bodies allow for a -40 setting...


----------



## Kerbouchard (Jul 29, 2011)

Kowalski said:


> One solution is to use Live View to focus as it is very accurate (uses a different AF system), but it is slow and not always practical to use for moving subjects.



That's the thing, the OP updated and said he tried using live view and shooting regularly and got the same results.  That's not a back focusing issue since a back focus issue would not effect focusing in live view(like you said, different AF system).

IF the problem is equipment related, I would guess it's a damaged lens mount or a lens element out of alignment.  If the problem is user error(the OP says he gets 20% good shots and 80% bad so it's possible), then I would probably say the highest common errors would be:
not using a fast enough shutter speed
poking the shutter release instead of gently pressing it
not waiting for the focus to lock before taking the shot
focusing, achieving a lock, and then moving the camera when recomposing


----------



## whiplash23 (Jul 29, 2011)

I don't own that lens, but have two friends who do and have been fortunate enough to borrow once.  One friend actually sent his back to Nikon after doing some test shots and determining that the focus sucked.  Nikon sent it back stating it was within specs.  As it turns out, the lens is very sharp if you focus on something reasonably far away.  If you are trying to focus 10 feet in front of you (like he was doing for the test), it isn't.

Also on the D90, be aware that if you are using AF-C, the best focusing spot to use is the center spot.  It makes a huge difference when shooting sports.  I couldn't figure out why I was getting a bunch of out of focus shots at my son's soccer games, until a member here turned me onto that little tidbit.  The difference the following week was like night and day.


----------



## Kowalski (Jul 30, 2011)

Kerbouchard said:


> That's the thing, the OP updated and said he tried using live view and shooting regularly and got the same results.  That's not a back focusing issue since a back focus issue would not effect focusing in live view(like you said, different AF system).
> 
> IF the problem is equipment related, I would guess it's a damaged lens mount or a lens element out of alignment.  If the problem is user error(the OP says he gets 20% good shots and 80% bad so it's possible), then I would probably say the highest common errors would be:
> not using a fast enough shutter speed
> ...



These are valid points, but based on the original photos, all but 2 show signs of backfocusing - the leaves behind the flower are sharp, the child's collar and shoulder are in focus, the water behind the dog is sharp, the dog tag is sharp, and the dog collar is in focus. The one with the bee looks like it wasn't focus locked, and the one of the dog with the eyes closed looks like motion blur. If there is a problem with slow shutter speed or camera movement, then the entire frame would be blurred, And based on the magnification of the subject relative to the frame, it looks like the shots were taken from close distance using the long end of the lens, unless the photos are crops. Unfortunately, we can only guess as there is no EXIF data provided for these photos. 

I also suspect the OP did not use Live View properly. It is a little tricky as there are various focus modes as well as noticeable shutter delay that may result in motion blur. Ideally, you should use a tripod for Live View to avoid camera shake. Again, EXIF data, and the photos taken in Live View, would be very helpful to determine the cause of the blurred photos.


----------



## djacobox372 (Aug 1, 2011)

Sw1tchFX said:


> I used to own this lens, but sold it because I never used it. The closer you focus, the worse it gets, at min. focusing distance, it sucks. Mine was never real good at f/2.8, whenever I needed a telephoto I always ended up renting the 70-200VR anyway.


Not my experience. I've owned the push-pull and the afs version of this lens as well as the 70-200mm vr.... I was actually disappointed with the performance of the vr lens and sold it as I preferred the IQ of my 80-200mm afs.


----------



## penfolderoldo (Aug 2, 2011)

Looking at the pics there are several things that stand out, focus seems out on a lot of them, on the dogs face there's pretty clear camera shake (given the decent shutter speed on the exif data), tho the most common thing on all of them is the resolution - it's terrible (i'd expect this from ISO 1600+, not 200 or 400). Have you tried mounting it on a tripod and shooting some shots, then shoot the same sequence handheld and compare them? When you contacted B+H did they say what they did, if anything? presumably they charged you, so you have an absolute right to know what they did for the money. I'd also try mounting the lens on a different body, as i'm not convinced it's all down to user-technique, I think there may well be an issue with the elements too.


----------

