# Nikon 80-200 2.8 AF vs AF-D



## anthonyd200 (May 19, 2010)

Ok, seeing as how this is a fairly large investment I am putting much thought into my purchase.

I have come into decent deals on both the 80-200 AF (push-pull) and the 80-200 AF-D (2-ring). The pusher is selling for $400 and the 2-ring is $700.

I work for a newspaper (not sports) and also shoot weddings and portraits, so I don't think the slow focus speed will ever give me issues on the push pull BUT it might and I don't like that. Plus the old pusher doesn't have a tripod collar. However, it is $300 dollars cheaper and in better shape (minus broken aperture lock).

Now I'm fairly inventive so I'm sure I could fabricate something that would secure the lens to the tripod without extra strain on the camera mount.

I guess the end question is what do you guys think push pull for less or bite the bullet and spend more on the 2-ring.


----------



## dhilberg (May 19, 2010)

If the two-ring is in good shape I would get it over the push-pull. Since you work for a newspaper I wouldn't worry about cosmetic appearance, it's probably going to get banged around anyway. Just make sure the optics and mechanics are good. If it's not in good shape I would look around for ones that are. The 80-200 two-ring is a great lens. AF on the two-ring is pretty snappy so you won't have to worry about speed. Plus it has a tripod collar.


----------



## anthonyd200 (May 19, 2010)

I most certainly prefer the 2 ring to the push pull but I'm not sure if I prefer it 300 times more...I do however consider it's an investment.

The collar is a huge factor too as odd as it sounds


----------



## Derrel (May 19, 2010)

The earliest 80-200 AF model weighed about 15 ounce less than later models, and had an awkward A/M focusing shift system, which was somewhat slow and cumbersome to shift between Auto and Manual focusing modes. But, with the combined zoom and focusing collar, it was a pretty good lens to use as a manual focusing tele-zoom. I used to have one for a few years. I think Kirk Enterprises (or perhaps Really Right Stuff) might still have a tripod mount accessory designed specifically for the original 80-200 models--they USED to make one.


----------



## djacobox372 (May 19, 2010)

Derrel said:


> The earliest 80-200 AF model weighed about 15 ounce less than later models, and had an awkward A/M focusing shift system, which was somewhat slow and cumbersome to shift between Auto and Manual focusing modes. But, with the combined zoom and focusing collar, it was a pretty good lens to use as a manual focusing tele-zoom. I used to have one for a few years. I think Kirk Enterprises (or perhaps Really Right Stuff) might still have a tripod mount accessory designed specifically for the original 80-200 models--they USED to make one.



I have the push-pull 80-200 af with on-lens AF/M switch, and it is a bit of a pain.  The AF however seems just as fast as the two-ring version which I've also used.  It's a great lens, and the price you're quoting is very good. 

You can't go wrong with either model, I'd go with the push-pull version based on the price, unless quick access to manual focus is a deal-breaker.


----------



## anthonyd200 (May 19, 2010)

I'm really torn...shipped the push pull is $430 and the 2 ring with tripod mount is $730, I wish the push pull had a tripod mount, hows the stability on a monopod with the camera mounted instead of the lens?


----------



## Derrel (May 19, 2010)

I never use an 80-200 or 70-200 on a monopod....I just never do...see, the thing is, the "old" 80-200 push-pull was really designed as a hand-held lens, and was aimed at professionals back in the days when a heavy F3 or F4 Nikon would most likely be the camera body behind the lens. The 1-pound weight difference between the original, push-pull and the later 80-200 models is really a notable difference...where the newer 70-200 VR model was decidedly nose-heavy and created a lot of front-dropping torque at the body, the early 80-200 was NOT the same way in terms of balance. I used the 80-200 on a tripod a few times, and the stability was acceptable. But the lens is not so heavy that it would require using a monopod...and it's not so heavy that it will damage the lens mount of a camera either. I cannot compare the push-pull to the later AF-D two-ring models, except to tell you that as this lens went through its various model variations, it grew heavier,  and heavier.


----------



## anthonyd200 (May 19, 2010)

I'm thinking the push pull and saving 300 bucks for other goodies now


----------



## djacobox372 (May 21, 2010)

anthonyd200 said:


> I'm thinking the push pull and saving 300 bucks for other goodies now



That's what I would suggest... the only downside is the af/m switch, but when you do set it to manual focus the large smooth focusing ring makes it a dream--reminds me of a manual focus only lens.


----------



## KmH (May 21, 2010)

The price for the 2-ring is pretty darn good and there is always the resale value intrinsic to both lenses.


----------



## benhasajeep (May 21, 2010)

The push pull has probably bottomed out or close too it price wise. If you ever plan on upgrading to a 70-200 in the future. I think getting the push pull is the best way to go. Probably get all or most of your money back if you sell it later on when upgrading. If you have a metal body camera I would not be too worried about using the camera tripod mount. If you have a plastic body Nikon (D90 and lower), I would not use the camera tripod mount with the 80-200 mounted!

Edit - Ah, just caught your name.  On a D200 I would not worry about using the camera tripod mount with the push pull 80-200.


----------

