What's the difference between these two lenses?

If you do some research on some of the photography websites, you will see that there were/are, i believe 5 or 6 different versions of this lens. I think that there were two ring, three ring, ED and a few others. The ED verisons are newer and have better glass.

Nice lens. Would be you be using for stills or on an adapter?

Dan
 
I'm looking for putting on my 35mm adapter. That's why I'm not sure which version is best fit for what I'm intending to use for. I did some search on google and found that some say AF-s is faster and better but I'm not sure if I need the more expensive for putting on a 35mm adapter.
 
Lor said:
I'm looking for putting on my 35mm adapter. That's why I'm not sure which version is best fit for what I'm intending to use for. I did some search on google and found that some say AF-s is faster and better but I'm not sure if I need the more expensive for putting on a 35mm adapter.
Click to expand...

If for use exclusively on an adapter, a lot of the other features would be a waste, save for two. Make sure that the version you buy has an aperture ring and make sure that it has ED glass, if possible. I think Tim Naylor in the 35mm adapter forum posted some stills quite a white ago that he shot with a version of this lens.

I would reasearch those stills and ask Tim which version he used. As I recall, the stills looked amazing and really beautiful.

Dan
 
Yes. For now the lens will be used exclusive on the adapter since I don't have a digital SLR camera yet. However, if I have the money, buying the AF-s version does not hurt, correct? What exactly is the advantage of the -s versus the -D version?
 
Hi:

The D version is the most recent. AF-S does not have auto TTL and a few other things I think. You should ask on the still boards like DP Review, there are geeks over that could give you the entire history of each variant, what the exact differences are, etc.

I don't own this lens so I don't know it really well. I do know that a lot of people who are considering the current 70-200 2.8 consider the 80-200 as well because it is a lot cheaper. The 70-200 has VR, the 80-200 doesn't but for video, VR does nothing anyway.

Go, explore, there is a whole web of still photo sites that will have every ridiculous detail of all of the 80-200 lenses in thirteen languages.

Dan
 
There is no 80-200mm Nikon f/2.8 that does NOT have ED glass. Or if there is you are not going to find it.

I have the first generation of this lens. It has a single ring that has a push-pull zoom function and focuses normally. The zoom is a bit clunky on my lens (I bought it used and do not know whether they all have this problem or not) and I certainly would not zoom with it while shooting as it would produce unusable footage. The third generation version of this lens has two rings so zooming will most likely be smoother.

It does produce beautiful pictures anyway.

More info on the differences can be found on this site
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photograph...resources/AFNikkor/AF-Nikkor80200mm/index.htm

And on this site you will find the explanations for AF and AF-S
http://www.graysofwestminster.co.uk/glossary/af_designations.php
 
Last edited:
I have the ED af and this glass is heavy and bright. This effectively replaced 3 primes in my kit. The 85mm, 105mm and the 200mm. So instead of changing between setups i just adjust the zoom. Now, in not so extreme situations, i just carry 3, a 20-40mm sigma f2.8 a, 50mm f1.4 and this 80-200mm.

And since theres no moving of elements and changing of length in the front when changing focus and zoom, its ideal for adapter with mattebox use.

Heres a latest video i did using the 80-200, the only scene with the 50 is the opening shot;

http://exposureroom.com/members/teddybear.aspx/assets/fd2b5ba9619944f4a803656a272e09e7/
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top