Nikon 80-200Mm F2.8Ed Af Zoom Nikkor D

Product Information

Not only are the 80-200's optics stellar, it's mechanics and materials are much better than most of Nikon's even more expensive lenses today, most of which are merely plastic. AF is fine if the focus ring doesn't need to go very far. If it does, it takes a while. If your subject is moving, it won't likely be able to keep up. Build quality is fantastic. I have only owned Nikon consumer lenses before and the difference is staggering in every respect. All contols have a silky smoothness about them.

toy) and will probably break with moderate use. Not to worry, if it does Nikon will cheerfully replace it with one just like it (still in production, so parts are plentiful). The focus is fast and sure even on my D70. In good light it was as fast as myfriend's Canon 70-200/2.8 USM on his 20D. In dim places though it would take twice as long to focus as the USM one.

The Nikkor AF-S 80-200mm f/2.8 IF-ED, introduced late in 1998, was one of the first AF-S lenses. In fact it was the first zoom lens that featured the then new sonic wave driven autofocus. It was discontinued and replaced by the Nikon AF-S 70-200mm VR less than 5 years after its announcement. My third converter is a manual Vivitar 2x Macro converter (build by Kenko). Mounted on the AF 80-200/2.8D EDn results are really really pathetic. The worst I've ever seen. Since it's designd for normal 50mm lenses to give a good 100mm macro that goes from infinity to 1:1 it's no big wonder. This same converter gives stunning sharp results with the Nikkor AF 85/1.4D btw. A friend uses this combo as his macro lens.

D: The lens tells the camera the distance to the subject, which helps the exposure meter, especially with on-camera flash.Which 80-200 f/2.8 D is yours? The older 'single ring' or the newer 'two rings'? I have the former, however optical formula and image quality look like to be the same. An 80-200mm lens is usually a pro's most important lens. Nikon most certainly makes sure that this lens is excellent, since most of Nikon's (and Canon's) reputation rests on the performance of their f/2.8 tele zooms. I didn't have a new 80-200mm AF-D against which to compare it, but when I have in the past, the new lens is much, much faster. You get a bit of torque reaction as the faster cameras spin the big front element, but not with this lens. EXIF and exposure data read correctly with the TC-20E, meaning the camera and EXIF read in the effective f/stop, which now starts at f/5.6, and the effective focal length, which goes from 160-400mm.

Most lenses by Nikon look good and will do a good job if you do your part. A very few are just special. They have that crystal clear razor sharp 3D pup look about the images. That would describe this beauty. You do your part and you get those oooos and ahhhhs from viewers. Its only vice is that the corners are never super-duper sharp for landscape photographers at the 200mm end, but these lenses have always been for sports, low light and portraits, not tripods. At 200mm and f/2.8 in the FX corners it's sharper than the 70-200mm VR, and I've never seen any pro sing anything but praise about the 70-200 VR. I use this lens with my D50 and although it uses the mechanical linkage to achive focus, the speed is very good with virtually no hunting in most light conditions. One day when I upgrade this to a higher megapixel model, I am confident I will be in posession of a lens which will enable me to fully appreciate any improvement in definition. The only incompatibility is that it will not autofocus with the cheapest D40, D40x and D60, but if you focus manually, everything else works great. The D40, D40x and D60 even have in-finder focus confirmation dots to help you.The 80-200/2.8 D feels nice. Everything is metal, not crummy plastic like most of everything else from Nikon today. Real weaknesses of the lens in use are that it is not as rugged as it seems on the outside. The MF/AF toggle ring soon develops problems and the focus limiter switch which is glued on can fall off. Each generation improved over the last. I've owned versions 1-3 and used the AF-S for long enough to compare them. I don't think it's as sharp as the VR II throughout the range. From 80mm to 150mm, maybe. But when both lenses are all the way out at the long end (200mm), I think the 70-200 VR II has a noticeable sharpness advantage. You have to pixel peep to see it, but the VR II is definitely sharper. I own the 80-200/2.8 AF-S, and got to try out the 70-200 VR II briefly. The 70-200 also has a slight AF speed advantage. Given this lens' long-standing reputation for performance, we were a bit surprised that it wasn't a bit sharper wide open across its focal length range. Wide open, it was quite sharp from 80-135mm, but softened markedly at 200mm. Stopping down to f/4 improved sharpness across the board, but the blur profile at 200mm was still somewhat lopsided. (This was a little reminiscent of what we saw in our initial sample of the Nikkor 12-24mm ultra-wide zoom, apparently an issue with earlier production of that lens. - We'll ask Nikon for another sample of the 80-200mm f/2.8, so we can see if the softness at 200mm is universal or an issue with the particular (brand new) sample we tested here.) Diffraction limiting set in on our D200 test body at about f/16, but wasn't too bad even at the f/22 minimum aperture.