Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 AF-S

[KenJulio]

Since the 80-200 af-S can only be found used, you're looking at about 1200. With the release of the 70-200 VR II, the VR I model has been seen as low as 1200 used. I would lean toward a used 70-200 VR I as you gain VR for those low light portrait situations, but since you'll be getting a d7000, bumping up the ISO to gain shutter speed will help.

[pbyd]

I also agree with Ken, for the price you can get the newer 70-200 VR I, but I for one sold my 70-200 VR I because I much prefer the 80-200 AF-S. For those that do not know the difference, this was the first and only 80-200 to have a S (focus motor) and this has made the price only go up as the 70-200 VR I price has gone down.
Wayne
Photography by Design

[CharlesEHilton]

Originally Posted by MD2595

I would post some pics taken with it, but they wouldn't look nearly as good as my ones taken with the 70-200 because I was using the D100/D200 back then.

I didn't mention the camera of the photo I posted above but it was a 4.3MP Nikon D2Hs. I now shoot with the Nikon D3. Over the years, I have had to have my 80-200 AFS 2.8 in the shop for repairs. During those times, I had a loaner from my camera dealer it was the 70-200mm VR I. At one point, I had the lens for several months and was never satisfied with the quality of my images compared to my 80-200.

Nikon changed the glass to make room for the VR I supposed and to make the 70-200 a little lighter. They lost something when they did that. I rarely even think about using VR in the lenses I have because if I need to hand hold something, I use a tripod and always use a monopod at other times even with shorter lenses. I shoot fast moving subjects and people portraits, it doesn't matter. I have not tried the 70-200 2.8 II, they have made some changes in the lens glass so it may be better.

My dealer did tell me that some of the 70-200 V I lenses were great but most were not. I skipped that lens and if the 80-200 holds out, will wait for the next one unless I can find a good used 80-200. When I purchased my 80-200, the 70-200 had just come out, I paid the same price for the 80-200 as I would have for the 70-200 and have never regretted the decision.

Try out all your choices before buying, shoot them all wide open and on a lot of different subjects. One will prove to be better for your style.

[drgibson]

I shoot Flat Track races and on a mile track the the bikes are running 125+ down the straights. I have used the 70-200 VR and it wasn't as fast or as sharp as my 80-200.

DuQuoin Il, Scott Scherb on a Harley XR750 doing 130 mph


The lens is also easy to hold this little guy was only doing about 30 mph and look at the travel I got out of it.

[Ralph Merlino]

I have mine for over 15 years and it still works perfectly.

[HoustonShutterbug]

Originally Posted by ken74

Since the 80-200 af-S can only be found used, you're looking at about 1200. With the release of the 70-200 VR II, the VR I model has been seen as low as 1200 used. I would lean toward a used 70-200 VR I as you gain VR for those low light portrait situations, but since you'll be getting a d7000, bumping up the ISO to gain shutter speed will help.

Ken - is this not the lens Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D ED Lens 1986 B&H Photo ? It shows it isn't compatible to lots of DX bodies, but doesn't mention the D7000 - guess I would need to look into that.

Generally - what I'm seeing here is that people have been happier with the 80-200....but, if it won't work with the body of the D7000, guess I'm going to be forced to go with the 70-200??

Thanks everyone for the input. I feel so "green" here.

[KenJulio]

That lens is NOT the AF-S lens so it does not have the motor built into the lens. It will work on the D7000 or any bodies that have an AF motor, the D40 does NOT have an af motor in the body.

Also, keep in mind, the link you provided is to an imported lens meaning you will not be covered under warranty if sent to a US shop for servicing. If you look around, you can find a used one for about 6-800 locally. If you're wanting new and want the US warranty, then you're looking at about 1100. Again, for another 100, you can find a used 70-200 VR I.

[HoustonShutterbug]

Ken, thanks for your patience. I'm just trying to make the right decision! Would you trust buying a used lens at this price point? I see the new one runs $2100ish (for a 70-800 VR II)......but it would have a warranty. So hard to know the best thing to do!!

[KenJulio]

This is the US version of the link you posted above: Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D ED Lens 1986 B&H Photo

It's a good lens, the question is do you need VR or AF-S. If AF-S, then a used AF-S 80-200 or 70-200 VR I, if you need VR, then the 70-200 is what you'll need. With most of the sellers on here, I trust them, I would want to test the lens before purchasing. You can also buy refurbished if there are any available, BH and adorama would have refurbs available.

[drgibson]

I can't speak for the new 70-200 VRII but I had issues trying to use the VR on the 70-200 VRI while shooting action shots. Neither setting seemed to help, in fact they both seemed to make action shots less focused. So if you are looking to use this for action shots then you might want to rent one and try it out first.

[HoustonShutterbug]

Don - thanks for the input. I am definitely looking to use this lens for action photography as well as portrait. I had no idea you could rent them! I'll look into it.

[KenJulio]

Originally Posted by drgibson

I can't speak for the new 70-200 VRII but I had issues trying to use the VR on the 70-200 VRI while shooting action shots. Neither setting seemed to help, in fact they both seemed to make action shots less focused. So if you are looking to use this for action shots then you might want to rent one and try it out first.

I havent had any issues with my VR II with action shots, but I turn off VR when for any action shots because it could trigger when I'm panning. I'm not sure why you would want VR on for any action shots.

Here's a shot with my VR II panning @ 1/100th @ f16

[todd_a]

I like this lens but if it is in a low light situation the VR would definitely be handy! I have attempted to use this for portraits in the evening outside and late afternoon on darker coudy days and have had motion blur. It is a heavy lens but when there is enough light, it is awesome! Lately I have been in situations where I was attempting to balance slower shutter speeds and keeping the ISO lower and I ended up getting a mixture of noise AND camera shake induced blur. I have been thinking about moving to a 70-200mm with the VR, but I don't know how much I will gain from that move.

The only negative things I can say about this lens are that it is:
(1) It is heavy
(2) Once you pass below quick shutter speeds at 2.8 and as high an ISO are you are willing to go you do not have the VR of the newer versions to keep the camera shake blur down.

That is all the negative there is about this one!

When I was reading through this thread I noticed there is some confusion as to which version of the 80-200mm lens this is. This is the AF-S which was only made for about 4 years as opposed to the other versions of the 80-200mm, one of which is still produced today. The AF-S has the internal focus motor, so it will Auto Focus with all the nikon bodies, even the D40 and others that do not have a focus motor in the body of the camera. The currently produced version DOES NOT have the built-in focus motor so it only Auto Focuses on certain camera bodies that have internal focus motors in them.

I only have a couple of examples from mine at my disposal at the moment as I am not at home, but here they are.

This one was with a couple of SB24's on stands to camera left with shoot-through umbrellas. f7.1, 1/100, 80mm on my D300. the eyes are a little soft because of user error (me).


This one I don't have the all the exif to look at, but I'm pretty sure it was at f2.8 and I was zoomed to 200mm, also on my D300.

[brewercm]

Todd,
Here is an updated picture taken with that lens. Not too shabby considering the exif data this shot was taken with on a D90. BTW, excuse the elbow sticking out on the left but I had to crop since I didn't have a release to put the other girls picture up.

ISO 1600, 200mm, f2.8, 1/60 sec