F3: Nikon 200mm Zoom Lenses

W

WestView Digital

Active member
I'm shopping for a longer lens to use with an optitek nikon adapter. Nikon has a 70-200 2.8 for around $2,400 and an 80-200 2.8 for around $1,100. Other than the 10mm difference, the more expensive one has image stabilization. Correct me if I'm wrong but IS needs power and the F3 with Optitek won't provide any power, so I'm not going to get any stabilization with the more expensive lens.

Anyone have experience with these lenses and how the image quality might differ between them? Or other recommendations for a longer zoom? I currently have the prime kit set, the Tokina 11-16 and the Tokina 28-70.

Thanks all!

Andrew
 
The Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D ED is an wonderful lens. Has an iris external (manual) ring.

You can couple this lens with the Nikon TC-20E III 2x Teleconverter for a clear and sharp 160-400mm f/5.6 converted zoom lens (better at f/8).

This lens can be used any time even with any camera with Canon mount (HDSLR or Cinema) with a $30 EOS to Nikon adapter ring due to the iris manual ring.

Hope this helps.

Good luck!
 
You may also want to consider the new Nikon 70-200 f4. It's a lot smaller and lighter than the 70-200 f2.8 and in every review so far, it outperforms it at identical apertures.
 
Thanks for throwing that into the mix.... Opinions between the 2 for an F3 anyone? The newer one is slower but maybe sharper? Vibration Reduction is a non-issue with the F3, right?
 
I have not used the 70-200, but own the 80-200, it is a hold over from my older Nikon gear and about 10 years old but still performs great. It is sharp through the whole range, but slightly softer on the very end of the lens. Over all for a still lens on a video camera it is a great option. An as mentioned above an added extender makes it even more versatile.
 
noirist said:
You may also want to consider the new Nikon 70-200 f4. It's a lot smaller and lighter than the 70-200 f2.8 and in every review so far, it outperforms it at identical apertures.
Click to expand...

+1 for this one. I love the images I get out of my 70-200 f4. It just is so warm and rich while still sharp as nails wide open. One draw back is that the front element spins & telescopes when you change focus, so it doesn't work with a clip on matte box. The focus ring is toward the front of the lens, so making a follow focus work with it & a rail mounted matte box can be tricky as the rails run out of room for both the FF and MB mounting up there. Much of this will depend on your FF and MB sizes/configs.
 
So which should it be? An f4 that's sharper and lighter... or an f2.8 that would be better in low light. I'm thinking the f4 lens since I can push the F3 with a little gain if I have to and it's still pretty clean. I assume at a focal distance like that, the DOF is pretty shallow at either an f4 or f2.8.

I'm really going for a sharp highly saturated color feel.

This is the one I was originally thinking of: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/124669-USA/Nikon_1986_AF_Zoom_Nikkor_80_200mm_f_2_8D.html

and this is the one I'm leaning toward: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/897230-REG/Nikon_2202_NIKKOR_AF_S_70_200mm_f_4_0G.html


 
I own the 2.8 70-200 VRII and it is a great lens, use it all the time on my Nikon cameras and occasionally on the F3. I believe the 4.0 is about the same sharpness, much lighter, and more plastic than the 2.8 and also has VRIII (can't use that with F3). I have read it has a little more aberration (barrel) but has great reviews. If I was buying it just for the F3 and did not care about the 1 stop of light would probably choose the f/4. For whatever it is worth, I usually like the image of the 2.8 at about 3.2 the best but 4.0 is not that much different. I am sure that at f/8 they are virtually identical.
 
WestView Digital said:
So which should it be? An f4 that's sharper and lighter... or an f2.8 that would be better in low light. I'm thinking the f4 lens since I can push the F3 with a little gain if I have to and it's still pretty clean. I assume at a focal distance like that, the DOF is pretty shallow at either an f4 or f2.8.

I'm really going for a sharp highly saturated color feel.

This is the one I was originally thinking of: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/124669-USA/Nikon_1986_AF_Zoom_Nikkor_80_200mm_f_2_8D.html

and this is the one I'm leaning toward: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/897230-REG/Nikon_2202_NIKKOR_AF_S_70_200mm_f_4_0G.html
Click to expand...

I've had the first one you listed (older version 2.8) since it came out new about 13 years ago. It's still sharp as ever even wide open. The one thing I noticed a while ago while using it on my F3 is, when you change focus directions quickly you can get a small "image jump/shift". At first I thought this was because it's old and has been through hell. I went to the camera shop and tested a brand new one and it did it as well, also tested a 70-200 VR1 and it too had the shift. Tried the newest $2,400 one and it was perfect. Damn. If I was still shooting stills professionally I'd consider it but considering I use the lens infrequently I couldnt justify it.

The effect can be minimized by changing focus direction slowly. If your doing a set up rack focus on something, make sure the focus has been turned slightly in the direction you'll be racking to and it wont happen. If I were you I'd go to a shop and test the new f4 version and the older 2.8, if the f4 ver. doesnt shift it might be a good purchase. The DOF difference between 2.8 and 4 can be inches so I wouldnt worry about that. Otherwise the older 2.8 is a solid sharp highly respected lens. Here is a great review on it:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/80200.htm
 
I have the 80-200mm 2.8 and love the image it gives - but its a beast of a lens and you'll need to get rails and lens support out to use it - something to consider
 
ade4all said:
I have the 80-200mm 2.8 and love the image it gives - but its a beast of a lens and you'll need to get rails and lens support out to use it - something to consider
Click to expand...

I agree. While the F3/5 using a Optitek adapter supports it with no flex, I always use rails with a lens support for extra stability.
 
A vote for the f2.8 80-200 which is fabulous. I've never bothered with lens support and had no problems.
As for the f4 I would argue to always go for the faster lens. You never know when you need it.
 
I'd also vote for one of the older 80-200mm zooms. The glass is just as nice as the 70-200mm, but you have an actual aperture ring, which makes life so much easier (an the VR functionality of the newer lenses is redundant on a dumb mount.
 
Thanks everyone... B&H had several of the 80-200 f2.8 in their used department and I just picked one up. At less that $850, it's a bit of a better deal than a Zeiss Compact Zoom 80-200 f2.9 at $19,900. Could the Zeiss REALLY be THAT much better?
 
WestView Digital said:
Thanks everyone... B&H had several of the 80-200 f2.8 in their used department and I just picked one up. At less that $850, it's a bit of a better deal than a Zeiss Compact Zoom 80-200 f2.9 at $19,900. Could the Zeiss REALLY be THAT much better?
Click to expand...

Optically?, that's debatable. Mechanically and functionality for cinema, way better. Worth 19K more?, not for my budget.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top