Confused and dissappointed about my Nikon Zoom lens :(

EDV

EDV

Well-known member
I'm referring to the venerable Nikon Zoom-Nikkor 80-200mm F/2.8D AF ED Lens

I bought this lens essentially for one reason: I thought it would give me a longer zoom range. By that I mean, roughly twice the zoom range I get with the fixed lens on the HPX170. It doesn't! Tests below show I'm not gaining ANY range whatsoever!

http://vzaar.com/videos/1060505

The distance readout was a respectable 34.2 metres/mm @ MF17. The flag was too far to get any bokeh.

what can you make of this?!? I need a zoom lens that would let me shoot wildlife!
This lens requires me to be 3 metres in front of the animal, otherwise I don't get a close up! Am I missing something here?
​
 
Forgive my ignorance but... what does this mean? Do I need a 200-400 mm lens to get the range I'm after? or would that still give me pretty much the same as what I get from the fixed lens?
I mean... as good as the HPX170 is, the lens was not one of its strongest features...
 
Last edited:
a 200mm lens will yield an approximate 400mm FOV on the AF100 (or about the same as the HPX's 364mm at the long end)

To get more zoom, yes, you'll need a longer-than-200mm lens or a teleconverter. I use a Nikon 1.4x from time to time, and the image degradation is negligible. Or you can get something bigger like a Sigma 50-500.
 
Id try a 1.4 converter or doubler with the 80-200

Have you every tried to frame up with a long prime - its hard to find the subject (say on a clean background like a bird in the sky or a boat on water)

Also a stills prime like a 400 2.8 is quite something to handle..

S
 
Are you asking about using the Nikon on an AF100, or on an HPX170 w/ adapter?

But no, 200mm is not a wildlife lens- as above, 200 + doubler, or 300, 400, 500. And yes, framing at that focal length is a b!tch, they weigh approx 5 lbs, and are pricey if 2.8
 
400 2.8 "This is Nikon's heaviest AF lens ever, at "222.2 ounces" in their specifications. That means about 14 pounds or 6.3 kg!" - Ken 'master of all' Rockwell.

S
 
EDV said:
Forgive my ignorance but... what does this mean? Do I need a 200-400 mm lens to get the range I'm after? or would that still give me pretty much the same as what I get from the fixed lens?
I mean... as good as the HPX170 is, the lens was not one of its strongest features...
Click to expand...

I've shot extensive bird footage with both the Nikon 80-200 2.8 (crop factor 2x or 400mm) as well as the Nikon 300 f4.0 (crop factor 2x or 600mm) and couldn't be happier with the results. I found it quite difficult to find birds, especially with the 300. Here's an example:


Here's another with bird @ 01:30



Also have used, in addition to the Nikon 300, the Canon 70-200 2.8 - love them both.
AF100 Nikon300mm.jpg

AF100 StereoMic Canon70-200.jpg
 
Those are some nice nature shots Scott, but I am looking for close up wildlife shots. Kind of like the ones you've got of your camera there, except featuring an Eagle or a monkey.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top