Lifesabeech From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 2246 times:
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?
Mikephotos From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 2923 posts, RR: 56 Reply 3, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2155 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.
AirNikon From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 290 posts, RR: 40 Reply 4, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2140 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...
Don't get married, don't have kids, and you will have more money than you know what to do with...
R Wood From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2129 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.
R Wood From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2134 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.
Milt From Netherlands, joined Jul 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2113 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!
Mikephotos From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 2923 posts, RR: 56 Reply 8, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2108 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.
Milt From Netherlands, joined Jul 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 2104 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.
Mikephotos From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 2923 posts, RR: 56 Reply 10, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 2107 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.