Thoughts about Nikkor 80-200mm f2.8 D AF-S IF-ED

[billtils]

I have 4 lenses, one zoom (the Nikon 24-85mm AF-S 1:3.5 - 4.5G ED). and three primes (Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G - everyone should have a nifty fifty, the wonderful Nikkor 300mm f/4E PF ED VR and a Tamron 90 mm f/2.8 macro - because it's a macro ...).

I like the primes - the foot zoom works just fine in most instances - but have been looking at plugging the gap in the 85 to 300 range, the candidates being another prime (the Nikkor180mm f/2.8) or possibly something in the 70-200mm zoom range such as the Nikkor 70-200mm f/4 G ED VR or the f/2.8 in the same range.

I buy most of my gear from Wex Photographic and have had some good deals from their used range and when looking there found this: the venerable 80-200mm f2.8 D AF-S IF-ED in 9- condition and around third of the price of the modern zooms in the same range. The absence of VR doesn't bother me, but I'm not so sure about the weight, with the 70-200 f/4 being substantially lighter (850g) than the f/2.8 70-200 (1540g) and the 80-200 at 1470).

Thoughts/comments welcome - thanks in advance.

[pendennis]

I own the Nikkor 70-200mm f/4 VR; also a Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 APO DG HSM. The f/2.8 lenses are a handful, but when you need f/2.8 over f/4, there's no substitute. The 80-200mm f/2.8 is a great lens, but the A/F is a bit slow by today's standards, and the A/F mechanism isn't quite as smooth as the later 70-200 versions. The 70-200mm f/4 is superb. It, and my 24-120 f/4 are my "walking around" lenses for my D750. I also use a 16-35mm f/4 which "rounds out" my kit.

When I got the Sigma, the same dealer had a 70-200mm f/2.8 VR, version 1. I'd read of a "clunking" noise when focusing, so I opted for the Sigma, instead.

[xpatUSA]

I own the Nikkor 70-200mm f/4 VR; also a Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 APO DG HSM. The f/2.8 lenses are a handful, but when you need f/2.8 over f/4, there's no substitute. The 80-200mm f/2.8 is a great lens, but the A/F is a bit slow by today's standards, and the A/F mechanism isn't quite as smooth as the later 70-200 versions. The 70-200mm f/4 is superb. It, and my 24-120 f/4 are my "walking around" lenses for my D750. I also use a 16-35mm f/4 which "rounds out" my kit.

When I got the Sigma, the same dealer had a 70-200mm f/2.8 VR, version 1. I'd read of a "clunking" noise when focusing, so I opted for the Sigma, instead.

Along similar lines, albeit OT, at one time I had both the Sigma 17-70mm and the 17-50mm - I sold the later model 17-70mm 'C' because of the constant f/2.8 of the 17-50mm. Haven't regretted it yet ...

[Manfred M]

I also own the Nikkor f/2.8 70-200mm G VR and it is one of my most used lenses. For the type of work that I do, VR is a must, especially when getting into larger format prints. I bought it to shoot it wide open and that is definitely something I do.

When compared to the f/4, it is a heavy lens so if weight is an issue, then you could consider the f/4. The only thing I don't like about the f/4 is that Nikon made the tripod foot an option (an expensive option) and a feature I consider necessary when shooting landscapes. It balances the camera body / lens on the tripod much better than when the camera is mounted on a plate using the screw on the body.

[pendennis]

I also own the Nikkor f/2.8 70-200mm G VR and it is one of my most used lenses. For the type of work that I do, VR is a must, especially when getting into larger format prints. I bought it to shoot it wide open and that is definitely something I do.

When compared to the f/4, it is a heavy lens so if weight is an issue, then you could consider the f/4. The only thing I don't like about the f/4 is that Nikon made the tripod foot an option (an expensive option) and a feature I consider necessary when shooting landscapes. It balances the camera body / lens on the tripod much better than when the camera is mounted on a plate using the screw on the body.

I ended up buying an after market (Vello) tripod collar for my f/4. I just couldn't see paying that much money for a collar which should have come with the lens. The Vello was @ $50, and the Nikon was @ $150.

[billtils]

Thanks Dennis, Ted, and Manfred. We are going to be in the US for most of July and I'll see if I can pick up a 70-200 f/4 there for a good price (although current trends in exchange rates mean that buying in the US isn't the bargain it used to be).

[shreds]

Thanks Dennis, Ted, and Manfred. We are going to be in the US for most of July and I'll see if I can pick up a 70-200 f/4 there for a good price (although current trends in exchange rates mean that buying in the US isn't the bargain it used to be).

A US friend of mine was talking about the great dollar rate for buying in London recently(!) Maybe better not to buy over there at present for us Brits. So spend before you travel and get the UK warranty too?