Nikon 80-200 f2.8 AF-D vs. 80-200 f2.8 AF-S vs. 70-200 f2.8 VR?

Question

Now I have a decent starting kit and I'm strongly considering one of the above three as my next lens. Let me bring you up to speed with the gear I currently have right now:

Nikon D90 (primary)
Nikon D5000 (secondary)
18-200mm f5.6G VR
50mm f1.8G
SB-700 Flash

As for budget... well I really don't have one so I'll have to save up money, possibly via a savings account.

I understand that the 80-200 AF-S is cheaper than the 70-200 VR and that it will autofocus on my D5000. I could consider buying the AF-D which will not autofocus on my D5000.

So for all you guys out there, which one of those three will you buy next? Is it really worth paying almost $500 extra for VR and extra zoom range for the 70-200?

Are the older lenses just as sharp as the 70-200? If you had a limited budget and wanted great image quality, are the 80-200 f2.8 lenses just as good?

Leave me an answer below with any comments or recommendations. Thanks.

Answer 1

I own the Nikon AF 80-200mm f/2.8.



It is a great lens, and half the price (new) than the AF-S 70-200 f/2.8. If you don't need AF-S or VR, it is a great lens for an amateur photographer that may not be able to afford the AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8.



And it is one of the few times that both Thom Hogan and Ken Rockwell agree that it is a killer lens.



Nikon did make an AF-S version of the AF 80-200 f/2.8, but they only made it for a short time - perhaps a year or two, around 2000 or 2001, before coming out with the AF-S 70-200 f/2.8. Consequently, they are hard to find in the used market.



I use my AF 80-200mm f/2.8 with a D90. And before I bought it, I did a lot of research.



If you look at reviews, there is some criticism about slow focusing with the AF 80-200mm f/2.8. However;



this lens has been around a long time, and there are several models made.



The original model, from the late '80s~early '90s, was a "push-pull" zoom (meaning you push the zoom in and out rather than rotating a zoom ring). Those were the first generation of this lens, and they are the ones that were the slow focusing lenses - about 3sec from lock-to-lock.



Lock-to-lock means the complete cycling of the focus mechanism when you depress the shutter half-way with the lens cap on.



In the '90s, Nikon changed the design, and went to the familiar twist ring zooming mechanism and improved the focus time. My lens (it was new in 2011), has about a 1sec lock-to-lock focusing time.



In contrast, the Nikon AF-S 70-200 f/2.8 has a 0.6sec lock-to-lock, and the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 has a 1.4sec lock-to-lock focus. So the AF 80-200mm f/2.8's focus time is comparable to it's competition.



One thing that is interesting, the focusing of this lens on the D90 is faster than the normally higher regarded D300s. I am concluding from this is that the D90's lens motor has a higher torque rating.



There is also a focus limiter on the lens that can help speed up the focus as well, and I have found focusing is less than 1sec on my D90 when using it.



As far as sharpness, the AF 80-200 f/2.8 is very sharp. While the AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 is sharper, it is more or less a measurable difference than a noticeable one. On the scale of 1-100, the 80-200 is about 98 and the 70-200 is 100.



If you are on a budget, you can buy the old model 80-200 (push-pull) for around $500.



A used twist zoom 80-200 is about $950, which means these lenses hold their value, and may even appreciate. But some of the older twist-zooms have a weak manual/auto focus switch. The switch ring tends to crack, and about 80% of the used ones I saw were cracked. This does not prevent proper use of the lens, but it is an annoying thing for a > $1,000 lens. But those rings have been made for 15 years, so perhaps the new lenses will not have those issues.



If you can find an AF-S 80-200mm f/2.8, they run about $1,500.



At any rate, I went with a new AF 80-200mm f/2.8 last year as it was half as costly as the 70-200mm f/2.8, and the lens holds it's value, so I figured I would not be losing anything by buying a new one.



And I have not been disappointed. The only issues I have had is sometimes I can get a focus hunt when tracking high-speed aircraft, but even then, it only happened twice in 100 photos. And that is the worst case scenario as you are focusing on a small dot in a huge sky.



If you are a pro, go with th AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8. But if you are an amateur and want a killer lens on a budget, buy a new AF 80-200mm f/2.8. Of course, being an AF lens, it will only autofocus on your D90, not your D5000.



When you go with this lens, you may have to relearn a few things, such as using spot focus and re-visit DoF concepts.



Here are a few samples taken with my AF 80-200mm f/2.8 on a D90:



Bokeh:



http://www.althephoto.com/lenses/bokeh2.jpg



Lens sharpness:



Original:



http://www.althephoto.com/lenses/tiger-small.jpg



Extremely cropped photo from the original photo above (notice the eye whiskers):



http://www.althephoto.com/lenses/tiger-large.jpg



Nine-blade diaphragm (great star patterns):



http://www.althephoto.com/lenses/af80-200-1a.jpg



Oh, one last comment. This lens does not come with a lens hood. The optional bayonet hood from Nikon is about $35. I bought a 3rd party bayonet hood for about 1/4th of the cost of the Nikon hood.



http://www.amazon.com/Adorama-Dedicated-Lens-Nikon-80-200mm/dp/B001CNERU8/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1345056982&sr=8-2&keywords=80-200mm+nikon+lens+hood



I also have the 18-200mm lens (the 80-200mm is very heavy), and I use it for vacations. The webpage below shows the differences in sharpness between several lenses, including the 18-200 and 80-200. I use the 80-200 as my benchmark lens.



http://www.althephoto.com/lenses/superzoom.php



If you compare the photos, you can clearly see that the 80-200 is a superior lens.

Answer 2

Nikon 80-200 Af-d

Answer 3

Nikon 80-200 Af-s

Answer 4

I've the Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 on my D90 and it is a high-quality lens. I are not able to say enough good matters about it. I purchased it because the 70-200 was once also too costly for me. So long as you recognize that the 80-200 is not going to autofocus on your digicam, you're going to now not in any other case be disenchanted. One predicament though is when you make a decision to move new or used. This lens has been made in some type for almost 20 years. The older ones have a push-pull zoom mechanism, and their autofocus speeds are gradual. The ordinary used costs for these are within the $500 range. The more recent ones - made 10 years ago and more moderen have a extra typical twist-ring zoom mechanism, and a a lot turbo autofocus gearing approach. They're in the $900 variety for resale. As you are not able to autofocus anyway, you might recall the older lens, but in case you ever upgrade your Nikon physique, it might be an challenge, so continually look to the long run when buying equipment. Nikon additionally made an AF-S version of the 80-200mm lens for a brief interval of time, around the 2001 time period. Unfortunately, they did not make them that lengthy as they came out with the first AF-S 70-200 quickly after. But in case you are lucky to find one used, that eighty-200 would autofocus on your digital camera. The resale for these lenses are around $1200. The AF-S eighty-200mm lenses are incredibly prized, and are difficult to search out. But as opposed to the used AF-S variant of the eighty-200, i would go together with a new one. That's what I did last year once I purchased mine. A new one costs about $1,one hundred~1,200, and with the used ones going for $900 (and could be 10 years historical), I figured a new one would justify the small extra cost over a used one. At any price, you're going to love the lens for exercises, motion, and even portraiture images.

Answer 5

Canon makes a 70-200mm f4 that could be a worthwhile choice. If you had a Canon.

Currently there is no 70-200mm f4 existing or announced by Nikon. It is rumored that Tokina is working on one.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=42064870

According to this it is rumored that it will be released in Europe in October. So far no information on when it will be released in the U.S., and of course there are no reviews on it yet.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=42064870