What to do? 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-D

[tcadwall]

OK... The opportunity has presented itself and put me in a bit of a quandary.

While I love my 18-200mm VR lens, I find myself wishing I had faster optics. Willing to live with that for now, except that I have found a used 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-D lens. Used, but in brand new condition. For around $550. This also includes a 77mm Nikon uv filter. My biggest concern with the lens is that it does not have a mount, and at 3lbs. making it not nearly as easy to handle as my 18-200mm.

ok, so I am not looking for a ton of advice on this particular lens, as I am quite sure that I would be happy with it even as front heavy as it might be on a monopod attached to the camera body (might need to make a mod to it?)

But my real question is that "kit" lens that I opted not to get originally. how good/bad is it really? I will need something that covers the wide angle range.

Ohhh what to do.... what to do... I love and hate NAS....

[eduardofrances]

While the 18-200mm VR has good reviews for a lens that is has so much zoom ratio, big zoom lenses aren't as sharp and/or present problems like vignetting, CA's, etc..... I prefer the 18-70mm (having test them both) for work, if I had to be picky, the Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8 would be the best friend of the 80-200mm f/2.8 (although very expensive), as for the weight, well you will get used (a months in the gym and you will be having less issues with the weight faster :) )

[TNB]

My biggest concern with the lens is that it does not have a mount, and at 3lbs. making it not nearly as easy to handle as my 18-200mm.
Can't you just order a tripod collar if you don't want to handhold the lens?

[tcadwall]

Yeah, I would probably end up going to rrs for a mount (I think I recall that they had good options there)

There are really 2 issues for me:
1) the 18-200mm (for most of my work - inventory photos) is a "perfect" solution.
2) that lens is not fast enough for sporting events.

Those are compounded by
3) at the moment I can't justify the cost of a new lens that covers a majority of the focal range I already have and still keep the old one.

IOW I could probably - pretty easily - sell the 18-200mm VR at no loss due to supply and demand. Then I would be looking to spend probably around $1K for a combination of lenses that would cover a similar focal range. (Thinking Sigma 18-55 f2.8 Macro ~$400 and the item of discussion 80-200mm f/2.8 ~$550)

Now I am just going to have to re-analyze my work shots, to see what range I am using most. Might be able to do fine with the Sigma and not change lenses too often.
--- added --
Eduardo, I don't see much CA at all. Honestly. I have seen it on very few shots. Specifically, I have seen it at hockey games, where the black puck, and skates show slight CA against the white ice - IOW only in the HIGHEST contrast levels I have shot. And of course this was a 3-click fix in Bibble that I was able to instantly apply to the group of shots. This lens also has very good marks IMO on other distortions. Vignetting has not been much issue either. This lens really does perform better than norm considering its range. However I do agree, it is not as crisp as a prime or the 80-200mm f2.8 for that range. Still quite good nonetheless.

--also--

I think I can handle it weight-wise, my thinking in handling is that without a mount on the lens, this thing would be very front-heavy on a tripod or mono-pod. Likely not something that I would want to leave hanging on a tripod without my hand on it at all time. (I don't have a super heavy tri-pod --- less than $300 bogen setups). Also not very well balanced on a mono-pod.

[jcon]

Tcad, from what youve mentioned in this thread it sounds like your trying to convince yourself not to get the 80-200. I think you should, like you said, you would have money left over from the sale of your 18-200 to cover your wide end. And yes, youd want a pod collar for that lens, its heavy. It should work fine on your tri-pod, See my sig for the one I have, and I used the heavier VR version on my pod, so you should be ok there.

Just my 2 cents:D

[tcadwall]

sounds like your trying to convince yourself not to get the 80-200

...but i like my 18-200vr... :( So versatile... Don't have to change lenses very often, oh my...

As I write, I have the images I took with the 80-200 sitting in front of me on my laptop. Quite impressive given the amount of light.

I am going back to the shop to pick up some prints soon.... Guess I will see if they have the 18-55 f/2.8 in stock to check out.

It will probably cost me a couple hundred to make the complete switch (depending on how much I can get for the lightly used 18-200)

[jcon]

I would be pretty sitff when it comes to the sale price of the 18-200. Its a popular lens that is hard to find(which Im sure you already know). Check eBay and see what theyve been going for and add a few more bucks to that price since you "lightly" used the lens and take good care of your equipment.

Good luck with whatever decision you make!

[rawpaw18]

Hey T,
Changing lenses gets to be second nature after a while, I store my camera in my bag without any lens on it. Depending on the situation I choose what I want, it keeps me from making a lens fit the situation instead of the situation choosing the lens.
Boy, did that make any sense to anyone?
I'm taking a nap.

[rawpaw18]

Oh yeah,
Personally, if you can, I would buy the lens and use it for a while before you sell your 18-200, keep both for a short time make sure it is right for you. Odds are you will be selling the 18-200.

[wh0128]

I also say get the 80-200mm f/2.8 because I have it and relaly haven't had any problems with it. The only disadvantage is the weight(3lbs) and size (7 or 8"), its hard to carry around for a long period of time and after a while you'll probably wish you'd have brang a bag or not brang it at all. I use mine to shoot indoor basketball, night time football, as well as some landscape photos.

I think it would be a good deal to sell the 18-200 and buy the 80-200 and that sigma 18-55. And if you have to with your sigma, just zoom with your feet and get closer.

[tcadwall]

NAS started taking hold and i had 2 run from there!!!

Especially when one guy started looking at the only D200 on the shelf... the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR box staring at me... (Bigger than the D200 COMBO box)

So many lenses, so many light setups on sale, had to run.

I am going to sleep on it over the weekend and see if it is still there.

Thanks for all the input.

[PHeller]

Keep this thread going!

I want to hear more about the 80-200mm f/2.8 because I think it may be one of the next lenses I pick up.

Is there anything in the area of a xx-300mm f/3.5?

[tekriter]

Keep this thread going!

I want to hear more about the 80-200mm f/2.8 because I think it may be one of the next lenses I pick up.

Is there anything in the area of a xx-300mm f/3.5?

Here's a thread from a few months ago regarding this same lens:

http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23317
-------------------------------------------------------

and here's two of my postings with my experience with this lens right after I bought it:

__________________________________________________ ________

OK, I've had the Nikkor 80-200 f2.8 AF-D for a couple of weeks now, and remember I don't have nor have ever used the Sigma in any of it's comparable forms.

That being said,

THIS LENS IS THE BEST FREAKING $900 I EVER SPENT.

There.

I've used this lens in some demanding conditions, shooting Friday night football with no flash at some fields with, let's say, "variable" lighting conditions. The sharpness of this lens, even wide open is amazing. Of course, this is the first true "pro" piece of glass I've ever owned.

Using a monopod, I've been able to shoot at night at around 1/200th to as much as 1/500th depending on the lighting conditions at the field.

What I haven't done as yet is shoot much in daylight. I have done one daytime football game for my grandson's team, perhaps later today or tonight I'll get some of those pictures posted to Photobucket and show them here.

Plus, this thing is HEAVY. I've tried handholding it for a while, even carting it around on a neck strap and it's a handful to say the least. It has made me wonder if the lens mount and chassis on the D50 is strong enough to hold it without deforming the front of the camera body. Does anyone know if the D50 has a metal skeleton underneath?

_________________________________________________

I must say that the focus feels a tad slow. Not a usually problem when you are shooting single shots, but if you are doing bursts of three or four frames it seems like the focus can't keep up with a moving target. But I don't know if that's a lens problem or a photographer problem yet. In a situation where I lock on a running back, for instance, and follow him for a group of shots sometimes the last one is out of focus just a bit. Another problem is a technique thing for sure - using the single focus spot set to center, if the subject moves fast enough, the camera focuses on something else instead, because my main sublect is now in the side of the frame, not the center. So that may be at the root of the burst problems. I just haven't shot enough with it yet.

I have my D50 set for AF-C, or continuous autofocus. The daytime shots were in the 1/2000th to 1/4000th range for shutter speed - I really coulda used an ISO 50 setting!! Shooting wide open at ISO 200 (to throw the background out of focus) meant that in some cases my shutter speed of 1/4000th wasn't enough. So I had to stop down occaisionally to avoid overexposure. Maybe I need a 77mm 2-stop ND filter.

You can definitely feel the mechanism moving when the lens focuses. Since I don't hand hold it much, it's not really a problem. But if you have gotten used to the HSM equipped lenses, it's definitely different.