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 2280 times. Hi, |
| Topic: RE: Question About Nikon 80-200/f2.8 Username: Speculous Posted 2001-01-03 07:13:41 and read 2198 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. |
| Topic: Speculous Username: Lifesabeech Posted 2001-01-03 18:55:06 and read 2179 times. Hi, |
| Topic: RE: Nikon 80-200/f2.8 Non AF-S Username: Mikephotos Posted 2001-01-03 19:16:18 and read 2189 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. |
| Topic: RE: Nikon 80-200/f2.8 Non AF-S Username: AirNikon Posted 2001-01-04 03:52:14 and read 2174 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 2163 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. |
| Topic: RE: Speculous Username: R Wood Posted 2001-01-04 05:05:27 and read 2168 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 |
| Topic: RE: Question About Nikon 80-200/f2.8 Username: Milt Posted 2001-01-04 19:30:56 and read 2147 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. |
| Topic: RE: Question About Nikon 80-200/f2.8 Username: Mikephotos Posted 2001-01-04 20:44:25 and read 2142 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. |
| Topic: RE: Question About Nikon 80-200/f2.8 Username: Milt Posted 2001-01-04 21:29:29 and read 2138 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. |
| Topic: RE: Question About Nikon 80-200/f2.8 Username: Mikephotos Posted 2001-01-04 22:00:38 and read 2141 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. |
| Topic: RE: Question About Nikon 80-200/f2.8 Username: Lifesabeech Posted 2001-01-04 22:22:58 and read 2141 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! |
Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved. |