Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 lens Old School

Nice. I have been looking to pick up one. This is the ED lens? Do you have the push pull model with the zoom?
 
Ouch... the price tag hurts.

but that example picture justifies it...

can I just have yours? K, thanks.
 
You can pick up the used push/pull ones for $400 used at KEH or on a bidding marketplace we all know.

I was part of a shootout about 6 months ago where we compared 4 different versions of the 80-200 f/2.8 (2 push pulls, 1 two ring, 1 two ring with AF-S) and the 70-200 VR.

In the tripod contest the results are almost identical with all the lenses... including the 70-200. Even at 200% the results are really almost indistinguishable.

That being said, the handheld results were a little different.

Color they were identical... Sharpness the 70-200 (with VR turned off) had the edge, followed almost identically by the 80-200 AF-S. The two push pulls were easily tied for third and the two ring 80-200 was in fourth. That being said we were viewing 100-200% crops to see the differences... For normal print work you cannot see a difference. Sharpness test with the VR turned on resulted in a significant edge for the 70-200, but still had to be viewed at 100% crop in order to see the difference and it isn't a $1000 difference (much to my dismay since it was my 70-200 that was used for the shoot out).

Note: This shoot out was done in normal day light of non moving subjects (with the exception of wind and there wasn't much).

I have had this conversation with a lot of people since then and I firmly believe that when discussing the 80-200 lenses if you don't need the instant focus ability of an AF-S lens (or are shooting a D40 or D60) then you don't need the AF-S version. What it offers as far as sharpness and instant focus doesn't equate to the $1000 used prices that it fetches and it's lack of VR keeps it from reaching the 70-200 levels.

The same can be said, as I have said in the past, the push/pulls really are just as good as the other lenses for a lot less money. A $400 used 80-200 is a great deal for an awesome lens Keep in mind, the push/pull versions do have creep, so if you have a problem with that these may not be ideal and you might have to invest for money for the slightly inferior 80-200 two ring / non-afs which is still being manufactured.

Please note: These are the findings of myself and several photographers here in the local area and the differences we noted were all taken after viewing 100-200% cropped images.

Unfortunately we did not test the bokeh of each lens for a comparative but from my observations the 70 is nearly rivaling the 85 1.4 from Nikon in bokeh quality...

The point of my post wasn't to ramble on about a silly test that we did months ago (and one that I can't post images of now, but will search for ones tonight when I get home) but to simply say... All the 80-200's are awesome pieces of glass. They really shine in nearly all shooting conditions and the vast majority of shooters will never see the differences between the results of all these lenses. Furthermore, the vast majority of viewers will not be able to see the differences in printed images unless you are printing massive sized images...

Then again, the same can be said for almost any lens (if you print 4x6 or 5x7 then a crappy lens can produce a great image).

Happy shooting and I will look for shootout pictures tonight... I think I remember where I saved them :)
 
As a quick note to supliment my rambling above post:

Thom Hogan, former editor for Backpacker Magazine and Nikon expert (check out the dpreview.com photography/nikon forums and read his posts... this is Ken Rockwell for those who want an inteligent professional truly insider knowledge) really breaks down the difference between each incarnation of the 80-200 f/2.8 and it's evolution towards becoming the 70-200 f/2.8 VR in his review of the said VR lens. Check out the review and break down here: http://bythom.com/70200VRlens.htm
 
Of all the Nikon glass I own, my old push-pull ED is the one I say "has soul". Awesome & incredibly useful lens, steal one off eBay.

When people see the grab shots I got of my kids when they were toddlers (they're teens now), I always point them to an 80-200 2.8 Get 10 feet away from kids and they forget you're there - really emotive shots, lots of compression, zero DOF, moody & sweet.

By the way, the 85 1.8 is a steal if you can find one under $300. Beautiful people lens.
 
Yeah i really want to get my hands on an 85mm lens. I also want a fast, wide angle prime, as the only fast one i have is the 50mm which isn't wide enough at times - on DSLRs with crop factor i think that the 35mm lens offers closer to what is the "true" 50mm fov. Either way, I love using telephotos because i don't need to get up close and 'in your face' with the subject, which as Michael said, offers for alot more natural shots. The main nitpick i have with this lens is the lack of VR. I wish the D80 had built in VR like the sony alpha! It's really really tough to use the lens indoors - I find that the minimum required to get sharp pictures is a 1/125 shutter speed, but that's pushing it alot. 1/200 is more consistent. However, in the daytime with plenty of light, the lens really comes into its own
 
Jeremy. Thanks for the insite. I have my eyes on the 80-200 2.8 ED for a little while. i am trying to go towards the two ring because of creep and potential dust issues with the movement over the years. My question is about using this lens for my Brevis during interviews (instead of moving the camera). Any thoughts on this lens fo 35 adapters? And are you saying, you would not worry about the different models (two ring vs push pull?).

Thanks for the insight.
john
 
This is a complicate question because you are asking me to compare my observations to my purchase.

I bought the 70-200 VR and firmly believe that it is the best lens I have ever shot with. Now, 99% of this is most likely because of the price tag associated with the lens and how hard it was to drop that sort of coin. Regardless though, I love that lens.

That being said, for your purchases and if you are using the lens on an adapter then there is 0 chance you will ever see a difference between the lenses. The difference in the lenses come down to sharpness (which is so insignificant that it is almost impossible to notice unless you are literally pixel peeping), autofocus speed (the AF-S obviously winning the battle here), and form factor. You will never notice a difference.

Now, it's true, push pull lenses can pump dust into the camera, but if you adequately prepare yourself and take the REQUIRED steps to clean your camera then you are fine and have nothing to worry about.

I would strongly recommend ANY of the 80-200 lenses but say to let price and budget be the deciding factor... They all perform nearly identical and indistinguishable from one another.

(BTW: I went through 2 hard drives last night looking for the shoot out and couldn't find it. I know it's on one of those drives but it is going to take a while to locate it... I will find that test though)
 
Thanks Jeremy. It seems like a winning lens for combining digital camera stills, a suitable adapter lens and price/performance factor.

Just to clarify, the 70-200 VR lens would not be of any benefit on an adapter compared to the 80-200 (not sure if the 70-200 would even work).

Thanks for sharing. Really interested in sharing stills and adapter lens and it seems like good, fast zoom lens are fine with an adapter.
 
On an adapter you would see no difference between the 70-200 and the 80-200, in my opinion. The video sensor will not resolve as much detail to show a clear winner and you are limited by the adapter itself.

The benefits for still photography of the 70-200 over the 80-200 are the AF-S for faster autofocus, the sturdier build, and the VR. The extra 10mm are nice but not a necessity by any means.

I hope this helps
 
Furthermore, I'd like to add that it'd be nigh impossible to use a push-pull with an adaptor, since it was developed for still photography
 
This lens blasted my career into photography to what it is today. This glass and my old D70 hehe.
I shot with this lens for a year before moving up.

Though it is too slow for what I need out of it now, it is still in my arsenal of glass, in case my 70-200 VR goes down.
I think this lens should be a necessity for any Nikon user who can't afford the 70-200 VR f/2.8.


http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b86/iphil/spring_07_runway/dina_bar_el/DSC_6662.jpg
 
Last edited:
Just bought this lense for AUS $720 (twist version) and should get it in a couple days, can't wait. If there are any aussies that are looking at this lense I saw one for 500 bucks in a private sale, I'll get you the number if interested.
 
i dont find the VR version any sturdier than the 80-200. what i do find on the VR is no aperture ring. this would make things more difficult with a 35mm adapter (if u use um) So if u where using it for adapter work i wouldnt get any VR lenses. if for photography than the VR versions would be better. (because of quicker AF)
 
MalcolmOng said:
Furthermore, I'd like to add that it'd be nigh impossible to use a push-pull with an adaptor, since it was developed for still photography
Click to expand...

Aren't all lenses developed for still photography? I'm getting conflicting answers here on whether or not the push pull 80-200 is suitable for 35mm adapter work...
 
If all you plan to do are static shots, then yes the push pull will work. If you have to change focus at all during a shot, then no. Just plan to spend a few hundred more and get the AF 2 ring version. Should work well for the adapter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top