Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/aviation_photography/read.main/6576/

Topic: Question About Nikon 80-200/f2.8
Username: Lifesabeech
Posted 2001-01-03 05:35:43 and read 3927 times.

Hi,

I'm considering purchasing a Nikkor 80-200/f2.8 lens for use with an N80/F80. There are 2 common versions of this lens:

1)80-200mm f/2.8D AF ED-IF

This is the older (and cheaper version)

2)80-200mm f/2.8D IF-ED AF-S

Newer version with SilentWave

From what I have read these lens are optically quite similar. I can't imagine complaining about either one. The question I have is whether I will be at much of a disadvantage with the older model when it comes to aviation photography. Would the focusing with the older version of the lens on the F80/N80 be more than fast enough. I can appreciate that the SilentWave version will be better but I can't bring myself to spend that much money. I can handle buying a used version of the older one and if necessary purchase it new (it has been discounted a little since the introduction of the newer version). I know that I can (and have) read tons of reviews and even try the lenses in the store but none of these will tell me what I can expect in the field. Any personal experience?

Thanks
Lifesabeech

Topic: RE: Question About Nikon 80-200/f2.8
Username: Speculous
Posted 2001-01-03 07:13:41 and read 3845 times.

I have used the cheaper version (80-200mm f/2.8D AF ED-IF ) for a year now. First with an N60, N70, and now the N80.

The only time I can remember the autofocus not being fast enough was when "machine-gunning" a concorde take-off... about 3 of the 10 shots came out blurry

But other than that... I love it, and think it's great. So I'd go with the lsss costing model. (unless you get to shoot concordes every day)

 

Topic: Speculous
Username: Lifesabeech
Posted 2001-01-03 18:55:06 and read 3826 times.

Hi,

I was wondering, considering the weight, how easy it is to shoot freehand with it? Does the basic lens come with a tripod collar or do you have to pay extra for it (like the hood)?

Cheers,
Lifesabeech

Topic: RE: Nikon 80-200/f2.8 Non AF-S
Username: Mikephotos
Posted 2001-01-03 19:16:18 and read 3836 times.

The "newer" non-AF-S version does have a built-in tripod collar. Shooting handheld is very easy and I do it all-the-time. The lens is not really that heavy. In fact, I think it's easier to shoot with because of the weight than my old 70-300/f4-5.6. The 70-300 was too light and I noticed more "movement" with that lens than the 80-200/f2.8. From reports I've read, the AF-S is only slightly faster (AF) than the newest non-AF-S lens. Also, optically it's very very similar as you mentioned.

Michael

Topic: RE: Nikon 80-200/f2.8 Non AF-S
Username: AirNikon
Posted 2001-01-04 03:52:14 and read 3821 times.

Michael is right on with his comments. The 70-300 is TOO small and light, not offering much stability. I would compare the two lenses to a Beretta 25 and a S&W .357MAG. Both can do the job, but the latter does it better. In fact the 80-200 on an F5 is a heck of a weapon, if ever needed in self-defense...

Topic: RE: Nikon 80-200/f2.8 Non AF-S
Username: R Wood
Posted 2001-01-04 04:51:21 and read 3810 times.

Yeh, I have to agree with the others: I have owned both; I love the tripod collar on the older version (right before the AFS) and the speed (of focussing) was not markedly slower, it was slower, but not by much.
As for the newer AFS 80-200 f/2.8, in general, it's great, seems a tad bigger, responds slightly better, but they messed up big time with the tripod collar they put on it! It is very difficult to swing from vert to horiz in a pinch. You can, however, take off the collar which does me no good whatsoever since I use monopods a lot.

Topic: RE: Speculous
Username: R Wood
Posted 2001-01-04 05:05:27 and read 3815 times.

I have the AFS 80-200 f/2.8 and to me it seems fairly light weight and should be very easy to hand-hold. The hood I'm sure is effective but is rather conspicuous. Many times I take it off to be less noticeable. The tripod collar and hood come with the lens at no extra charge. See or similar website for weight-size info.

Topic: RE: Question About Nikon 80-200/f2.8
Username: Milt
Posted 2001-01-04 19:30:56 and read 3794 times.

For a change, I have to disagree with most here. I've owned both the AF-D and the AF-S version. They are optically not the same. The one with the tripod collar (previous version) is optically equal to the older push/pull zoom but the AF-S is definitely redesigned. If you look at the Nikon site you'll see that the previous version has 16 lens elements in 11 groups while the AF-S has 18 lens elements in 14 groups. Independant tests have also shown that the AF-S optically outperforms the previous version.

Focusing speed depends largely on your camera. The AF sensor is in the camera and it's the camera that drives the focus motor, either in the camera itself or in the lens (AF-I/S). AF-I/S are definitely faster, especially when used on the pro bodies like the F5, D1 and F90x. AF-S is a silent wave variant of the AF-I lens and is not really any faster, but mostly quieter. As far as I know AF-I is not sold anymore.

If you have the money and the body that supports AF-S, I would go for the AF-S. If you want a good 80-200mm lens and don't really care about AF-S, go for the previous model. It's definitely a very good lens!

Regards,
Marco

Topic: RE: Question About Nikon 80-200/f2.8
Username: Mikephotos
Posted 2001-01-04 20:44:25 and read 3789 times.

Maybe in the labs the AF-S (optically) outperforms the older tripod model, but I doubt you could tell the difference on a 35mm slide or a 8x10 print. I've read reports that go both ways: yes, it's better and no, it's the same. I don't argue the construction difference but I'm interested in the final result and the $500-600 cost difference is (to me) not worth it. Now, if it was a $200 difference, I would jump on it. The AF-S is a fantasic lens that I'd love to own, so I hope you don't get the wrong impression from my comments.

Michael

Topic: RE: Question About Nikon 80-200/f2.8
Username: Milt
Posted 2001-01-04 21:29:29 and read 3785 times.

Well, I agree with you that it would be hard to tell the difference. The improvement in quality of the lens is no reason to spent the extra money, I agree, but it's a nice bonus. But the lens is technically different, that's what I wanted to point out.

I agree with you that the price difference between the two lenses is too big. I therefore advise people only to by the AF-S lenses if you can afford it and you can use the improvement in speed. For aviation photography, you hardly need top-speed AF. My main photography subject is however autosport, where high AF speed comes in handy at times.

Regards,
Marco

Topic: RE: Question About Nikon 80-200/f2.8
Username: Mikephotos
Posted 2001-01-04 22:00:38 and read 3788 times.

I understand. I didn't mean to make it seem like they were identical in construction. Aviation photography is nothing like sports (auto or any) photography where you need full-time super fast AF, but there are times when you do and I'm glad the non-AF-S can handle it. I was very close to buying the AF-S but decided to use the extra $500 for Kodachrome and other accessories.

Michael

Topic: RE: Question About Nikon 80-200/f2.8
Username: Lifesabeech
Posted 2001-01-04 22:22:58 and read 3788 times.

Thanks again for all the great discussions about Nikon's various 80-200/f2.8 lenses. I'm strongly tempted to pick up the non-AF-S two ring version tonight!

Cheers,
Lifesabeech


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/