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

Product Information

It does not rotate through 360;º it has one carefully-placed stop. It's easy to position your camera to any of the four cardinal settings. 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. Although the VR is said to give 4 stops advantage over a similar lens, this advantage becomes minimal when you consider that the VR needs to be stopped down to f8 or f11 before it appears to deliver its best definition. On the other hand my 80-200 is very sharp from f4 so I reasoned that this took care of two or three stops advantage straight away. Nikon's first pro-level f/4 tele zoom was announced in late 2012. It has the highest rated MTF of any Nikon tele zoom, and performs spectacularly —at a fraction of the size, weight and price of the 70-200mm f/2.8 ED IF VR II.

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. Overall, the Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D is a great alternative for it's more expensive modern counterparts. Don't be fooled by its relatively dated design. It's an amazing performer at a bargain price. And at least for me, it's Pros ultimately outweighs it's Cons.When used on a DX camera, it sees angles of view similar to what a 120-300mm lens sees when used on an FX or 35mm camera. On a DX sensor giving 300mm equiv field of view I often use a monopod, significantly more often than I do with my 150-500 OS !

It is still perfectly practical today for use on almost all film and digital cameras as outlined above. In other words: You might consider a macro lens if you want to use this lens at close range at 200mm. Do tele converters work with the last screw lens the Third is the AF 80-200/2.8D EDn (new) from 1997-today. Two ring with tripod foot, quite fast AF, bajonett hood: people photography, but the Tokina serves me well. I used it first with my Pentax PZ1P, but I was never happy aboutMy sample, on my sample of D3, was a little better once I set the AF FINE TUNE to -5. Don't do this; every sample of lens and camera is different. If I was working in nasty, dirty areas, I'd forget the cap, and use an uncoated 77mm Tiffen UV filter instead. Uncoated filters are much easier to clean, but more prone to ghosting.

With a maximum repro ratio of 1:5.9; this lens gets effectively much closer than the 70-200/2.8 VR II, whose shrinking effective focal lengths at close distances give it only a 1:8.3 maximum reproduction ratio. Image quality is very good to excellent. Yes it is a bit soft wide-open (particularly at 200mm), but I would have no issues printing 11x14's wide open with this lens, and find the bokeh to be excellent for portraits and candids. The last few of these to leave the production line were updated to "D," as seen on their identity plates. 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.But then, the current Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8 G is just way beyond what i can afford. So, I looked for some cheaper alternative. Nikon showed a prototype of the first 80-200mm f/2.8 ED. It was never sold or seen again. It took an 86mm filter, as did the 18mm f/4 of its day. The other challenge is nailing focus if you're using wider apertures. Sometimes I get better results without focus peaking enabled. Do you know if the current 2 ring is the same optically as the push pulls? If so, then I can go to my local camera store to try it out and then get a used pp for 350 ish if its good.

I actually owned and sold the original, tank like 80-200 MF. It was really rough looking and the closest focusing distance of 2.5 m not very practical at times.. Unlike the newest 70-200/2.8 VR II, this 80-200 2.8's focal lengths don't wither at close distances.In conclusin, if you use tripod, hood, ML, good films, good labs, you will geat great results with the Tokina. If you need to hand hold in low light, then AF is slow. One full turn (two half-turns) of the AF screw only pulls focus from infinity down to 88 feet (27 meters). This is much slower than the current 80-200mm f/2.8, but fast enough for things that hold still.