It's the equivalent Tamron SP 17mm f3.5. From all I've read, the two are extremely similar in size and performance. If it weren't for the interchangeable mount on the Tamron, I would probably have had the Tokina instead.
There's some great older lenses out there...
- Thread starter Richdog
- Start date
Anyone got any opinons on the NIKON AF 80-200mm F/2.8D ED? I can get one new for around £700, and it seems to be as good as or optically better than the 70-200 VRII... though of course without the VR.
I want a fast telephoto without paying through the nose and this looks ideal. No focus breathing up close, and that finely machined, all-metal build quality... wow.
Great shot. How much did you pay?
Let me know how it turns out... hope you get a good copy as it really is an amazingly detailed lens and for that price you may have got a bargain if it's in good nick!
Cheers chap I'll check it out!
Looks nice, I'm also considering a 24mm prime.
I want a fast telephoto without paying through the nose and this looks ideal. No focus breathing up close, and that finely machined, all-metal build quality... wow.
Great shot. How much did you pay?
Let me know how it turns out... hope you get a good copy as it really is an amazingly detailed lens and for that price you may have got a bargain if it's in good nick!
Cheers chap I'll check it out!
Just bagged a 24mm f/2.1 as well
Looks nice, I'm also considering a 24mm prime.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,336
- Location
- Planet Earth
The Tokina does have the advantage of having autofocus though. Not bad for £130!
AF-S or AF-D? You can get the older one touch AF-D for £250-300. The twin ring AF-D is more expensive again and the AF-S is different optically and obviously a lot more expensive. Performance is great from wide open at all focal lengths for longer distance shots. Close up work requires stopping down a bit to retain decent sharpness towards the long end. (f4 or more) Chromatic aberrations are very low, with only bokeh fringing being present. Biggest issue is vignetting which is still present at f5.6.
This is the one touch AF-D that I have.
A few examples from mine on a D810...
Wide open @ 200mm (focus is on the eye of the white pigeon)
Sheltering Pigeons by --Kei--, on Flickrf5.6 @ 200mm
Sailing in the mist by --Kei--, on Flickrf4 @ 80mm
KMW_1637 by --Kei--, on FlickrThere are a lot of samples from these lenses in the flickr groups, here and here.
It's the F/2.8D, which is this one F/2.8D (same model you have I think?) http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Pr...nses/AF-Zoom-Nikkor-80-200mm-f%2F2.8D-ED.html
I literally cannot find the AF-S anywhere where I live )non-EU), and only want to buy it from a local store as it's a default 2 year warranty on all products ordered online, versus Ebay which is usually 6 months to a year. Besides, the AF-S is only comparatively marginally better according to what I read.
Looking at your photos, IQ us very good then? How is AF speed and performance in good and low light?
Last edited:
Image quality is excellent, close enough to primes to keep me satisfied unless I want faster than f2.8. AF speed and performance is more body dependent. It's superb on my F5 and pretty close on a D810. I didn't need any fine tuning. In good light I've had no issues. In low light you need some contrast, like the pigeons eye. If it misses focus it takes longer than an af-s to run through the range and back. Using the limit switch helps if you aren't needing closer than 3m. I think the twin ring version may be geared for quicker af as ken rockwell moans about af speed on the old ones.
Associate
- Joined
- 23 Dec 2012
- Posts
- 657
Anyone got any opinons on the NIKON AF 80-200mm F/2.8D ED? I can get one new for around £700, and it seems to be as good as or optically better than the 70-200 VRII... though of course without the VR.
I want a fast telephoto without paying through the nose and this looks ideal. No focus breathing up close, and that finely machined, all-metal build quality... wow.
The 80-200 is not as good or better optically than the modern VR II. The VR I comes up used quite a lot about £700-£750 which I'd go for ahead of the 80-200. Also look at the Sigma and Tamron offerings
That may be true, but it is supposed to be on par with the old VR. (plus it's a fair bit lighter to carry too) I also stated that the old AF-D model is usually between £250 and £350. The OP's location suggests the cost of things may not be in line with the rest of the UK though.
Sigma is optically noticeably worse, so not a contender for me at the same price range as the Nikon. Tamron I have had awful experiences with in terms of QC, focus issues and calibration... and I have no wish to repeat it. Autofocus is also hit and miss.
I think the 80-200 is so close as to be in the same league and better in terms of build quality and size, and there are many hundreds of user review online as testament to this.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 23 Dec 2012
- Posts
- 657
Sigma is optically noticeably worse, so not a contender for me at the same price range as the Nikon. Tamron I have had awful experiences with in terms of QC, focus issues and calibration... and I have no wish to repeat it. Autofocus is also hit and miss.
I think the 80-200 is so close as to be in the same league and better in terms of build quality and size, and there are many hundreds of user review online as testament to this.
The VR II has 21 lens elements in 16 groups with 7 ED elements and Nano coating compared to the older and simpler 80-200 with 16 elements in 11 groups with 3 ED elements and no Nano coating. It's not going to be the same or better than the newer design. Nikon doesn't make lenses that are worse than their predecessor.
For £700ish you are in the used 70-200mm f/2.8 VR I territory which is a step up over the 80-200 optically, AF wise and with the added bonus of VR.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Sep 2003
- Posts
- 8,506
- Location
- Glocestershire
Both times I paid £70, the first one off members market, and then 2nd one from London Camera Exchange in Gloucester.
Still waiting on it :S - looks like its sat with Parcel Force waiting for payment of the import duty nut not had any contact from them yet ........
It is actually an f/2.8 manual which has taken (and is still taking) a bit of getting used to. I took it out yesterday and the results vary drastically (my issue rather than the lens) but when they're goo, they're very good, this is virtually straight out of the camera:
Week #10 by Jon°, on FlickrFor just over £100 im very impressed - i just need to get my head round using it now
Question guys... someone nearby to me is selling a Nikon 70-200 VR (the first version) for £715. It's had 2 owners, but is apparently physically, optically and mechanically in perfect condition.
Is it worth picking up at that price for a good sample? Seems a good deal to me as the VRII is twice the price or more new!
Fair enough, but I think full-time manual would drive me nuts on a lens over the long term!
Is it worth picking up at that price for a good sample? Seems a good deal to me as the VRII is twice the price or more new!
For just over £100 im very impressed - i just need to get my head round using it now
Fair enough, but I think full-time manual would drive me nuts on a lens over the long term!
Is that an AI-s version? Pretty good deal if it was. The AF-D is optically identical. I've got an older pre-AI version that has been AI converted which cost around £60 about 5 or 6 years back before the manual focus boom.Still waiting on it :S - looks like its sat with Parcel Force waiting for payment of the import duty nut not had any contact from them yet ........
It is actually an f/2.8 manual which has taken (and is still taking) a bit of getting used to. I took it out yesterday and the results vary drastically (my issue rather than the lens) but when they're goo, they're very good, this is virtually straight out of the camera:
For just over £100 im very impressed - i just need to get my head round using it now
That 70-200 is about the going rate for second hand for an original VR. If you can't get an 80-200 for sub £450 it definitely makes sense if it's within budget.
Manual focus isn't too bad, particularly when it's a wide angle. I started out with lenses that operated like ye olde present lenses where you focus then stop the aperture down manually before taking a shot. I moved to nikon from canon so I could have full meter coupling on manual lenses. Plus you also get focus confirmation on nikon too. Samyang's offerings have been interesting me of late as the 14mm f2.8 and the 135mm f2 are reputed to be very good. (ignoring the distortion on the 14)
AI-s lenses have the smallest aperture denoted as orange on both the large scale and the miniature ADR scale. AI lenses have multicoloured aperture markings and the ADR scale is all white. Other less obvious differences, there is a notch milled out of the mount ring just above the locking pin slot. (denotes the lens has a linear diaphragm action) It's all archaic stuff and which is only relevant when using certain older cameras like the FG and FA. More info on the mount revisions here.
In the case of the 24, here are the differences between the AI-s and AI versions. (they are optically different)
In the case of the 24, here are the differences between the AI-s and AI versions. (they are optically different)
Cheers
The 24 is the AI and the 105 is the AI-s
The 105 turned up today and despite being advertised as auto focus is manual - the seller has agreed a refund but the postage back to China and loss of handling fee when claiming back the import duty will leave me down a fair few quid. Looks like I'll chalk it down to experience and have a good play with my two new manuals ......
The 24 is the AI and the 105 is the AI-s
The 105 turned up today and despite being advertised as auto focus is manual - the seller has agreed a refund but the postage back to China and loss of handling fee when claiming back the import duty will leave me down a fair few quid. Looks like I'll chalk it down to experience and have a good play with my two new manuals ......
Your 24 should be optically identical to mine. The AI-s had the revised design that passed onto the AF version. Mine remains a bit soggy in the extreme corners until f8 and is best at f11. It's brilliant for unusual close ups at f2.8 though as the centre is very sharp.
The macro should still be a great performer even if it is manual. Most macro work is usually manually focused anyhow.
The macro should still be a great performer even if it is manual. Most macro work is usually manually focused anyhow.
Ah cheers
Yeah I thought macro would be manual but thought the auto would be useful for the non macro shots
Even with customs and handling it was around £170 so still not too bad. If I don't get on with it I can always sell it on
Yeah I thought macro would be manual but thought the auto would be useful for the non macro shots
Even with customs and handling it was around £170 so still not too bad. If I don't get on with it I can always sell it on
Thoughts on the Nikon 28-70mm f/2.8D ED-IF AF-S?
Can get it for £589 used with no warranty, but in good condition with no marks on the lens.
It would replace my 24-120mm as my general walkabout lens and would be used in clubs etc. I lose 4mm over my 24-120, but the low light capability seems very tempting.
Whaddya think?
Can get it for £589 used with no warranty, but in good condition with no marks on the lens.
It would replace my 24-120mm as my general walkabout lens and would be used in clubs etc. I lose 4mm over my 24-120, but the low light capability seems very tempting.
Whaddya think?