Customer Reviews

Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8D ED AF Zoom Nikkor Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras

5 star:		(40)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This lens is THE lens to own if you want to shoot indoor sports. The newspaper I work for has me out on a lot of volleyball, hockey and basketball beats, and this lens does not come off my camera. I have taken this lens out to soccer games and baseball games but use it mainly as back up. If you want to shoot these sports you'll want something up in the 300-400 range. Soccer especially.

The 2.8 aperture is a must for these low (and orange/brown) light situations. I was using a 200mm f4 but fell just short of being able to freeze the action perfectly without any blur. The little bit of extra light makes a world of difference.

I shoot with a D80 and find that I can keep my ISO down around 400 and be very comfortable with the results. In my situation (newsprint) I could go as high as 800 and be alright with it, but the glass in this lens lets me keep it low.

If you are in the fence, pick this lens up. For under 1000 bucks you can't beat it. It's ultra wide, and doesn't lose any sharpness at 2.8.

The only situation where you should not buy this lens is if you own a D40 or D40x. These bodies will not support the AF function of this lens, and seeing as how this is a great medium tele sports lens, not having AF would make this lens a bust.

They make a version with a built in motor that will communicate the D40 and D40x but it'll cost you close to 800 more.

As a side note this lens is heavy (as are most 2.8 tele lenses) There is a lot of big glass in this lens and after an hour or so of shooting hand held you will really want a mono pod. This lens has a great tripod shoe, so don't be afraid to throw it up on mono and go to town, your arms will appreciate the help

One final note. If you are undecided about this lens because it does not have any sort of optical stabilization or vibration reduction consider what you will be using this for. If you are shooting sports or action you wont need and it wont use it. If you are shooting from a tripod or good mono pod, you wont need and wont use it. The VR is only good in handheld situations when the object you are photographing is stationary.

This lens is a 5 star lens

Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8D ED AF Zoom Nikkor Lens is a very good quality lens. It's fast (fixed f/2.8), solid (built like a tank), produce great quality image, and priced very reasonably for a professional grade telephoto lens.

Having said that, there are some additional features that would be nice to have for this lens such as image stabilization, more silent autofocus (AF-S), and shorter minimum focus distance but those features will make this lens a lot more expensive (as those feature is included in the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 AF-S VR lens). If budget is not an issue, then I would recommend the 70-200mm f/2.8 AF-S VR (the Vibration Reduction technology and faster and more silent focus are very useful) or the 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-S (which has faster and more silent focus). If large aperture (fast lens)is not your main requirement, then you can get the 70-300mm VR (at a lower price)

There are several version of 80-200mm f/2.8 lens, and the latest one (non AF-S model and that Nikon still produce as of 2009) is the two ring model. The one ring push pull model is also good quality lens (solidly built and produce great image quality) but autofocus is much slower. If budget is an issue, the older push pull model would still be a good choice too.

If you are wondering whether you should get a fast lens or a lens with VR (Vibration Reduction), here's my take: In overall, VR does help a lot (as it will reduce camera shake) and will produce better/sharper picture than equivalent lens without VR (especially if the object is static). If the object is moving (sports/action) then VR feature alone might not help (depending on how fast the object is moving and how much light is available), and a fast lens often end up being a far better solution, even without VR feature as it will allow much faster shutter speed to freeze motion. Using tripod (and a remote) will substitute for the need of VR feature. In general I would recommend getting a fast lens with VR feature (and usually it is expensive) such as the 70-200 f/2.8 VR, but if one can only get for one or the other, then find out what do you want to use the lens for and then use the guideline mentioned here.

FYI: This lens will not autofocus with Nikon D40, D40x, D60, D3000, D3100, D5000 or D5100.

Pros
1. Great quality lens (very sharp pictures. 3 of the glasses made/coated with ED technology)
2. Very fast (fixed f/2.8 throughout the zoom range)
3. Very reasonably priced (compared to 70-200mm f/2.8 AF-S VR and 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-S)
4. Built to last. Very solid
5. Great for sport, action, wedding and low-light photography
6. Uses standard 77mm lens filter
7. Bokeh is very nice at f/2.8
8. Autofocus much faster than the older 80-200mm f/2.8 model (the push pull version)
9. The price is very stable (I bought mine several years ago and I could still sell it at the same price today)
10. With non full frame Nikon DSLR, the focal length becomes 120-300mm equivalent (nice reach). you can get Nikon 80-400mm for more reach but that lens is not fixed f/2.8).

Cons
1. Heavy at 2 lbs 14 oz or 1.3kg. (Good arm exercise :), or using tripod or monopod would be nice)
2. Autofocus not as fast and silence as the AF-S model (70-200mm f/2.8 AF-S and 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-S), but the autofocus limiter switch improves autofocus time
3. Tripod collar is too close to the zoom ring (you can remove or adjust the tripod collar though)
4. Thread for the filter can be better (it's made of plastic)
5. Lens hood is sold separately (highly recommended to reduce flare and internal reflection)
6. More expensive than Non-Nikon (sigma, tamron etc) brand alternative (some comparable price but they have faster and silence focus)
7. Lens could jump around a bit during autofocusing if you are not strong enough (due to the glass moving fast as the lens autofocus)
8. No Manual focus override mode on Autofocus mode
9. No Macro mode (can't be use for macro shot). closest focusing distance is quite far
10. No VR (Vibration Reduction), which will help a lot for this type of lens (heavy and telephoto)

In conculsion, if you are looking for a Nikon professional grade telephoto lens that is reasonably prices, you can't really beat this Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8D ED AF Zoom Nikkor lens. This lens is really good choice for sport, action, wedding, low-light, indoor photography.

Happy Photographing!

Sidarta Tanu

This is a top-notch lens, tack sharp and fast (f/2.8) across it's entire zoom range. The built-in tripod collar will save a lot of stress on your camera mount, you'll see why when you lift this sucker - it feels like a brick. On the downside, auto-focusing can be a little slow. If you have an older camera body with an underpowered auto-focus motor it may not be able to keep up with a fast moving target. My N90s can handle it pretty well, but I don't do many action shots. If you shoot sports or other fast action, you should consider the AF-S version. It's internal motor eases the load on the camera and improves focus speed, but make sure you're body can use AF-S lenses.

If you're a casual photographer who generally uses fast film, this lens is probably overkill. If you're very serious and shoot slow film, it will help you squeeze out every stop possible. The wide aperture is also great for minimizing depth of field, very useful if you shoot through wire at the zoo and for isolating subjects against a busy background (think great portraits). If you do get it, do yourself a favor and get a good monopod, your arms will thank you! I can't stress enough that this thing is *HEAVY*!

I love this lens and Nikon products in general, so I hate to be negative, but I think people should be aware of a potential problem with this lens. I take very good care of my gear, and although I'm a pro, I used this lens infrequently and very lightly. One day the M/AF ring button stopped working and the plastic ring that it sits in had a crack where there is a screw in it to hold things together. I sent it to Nikon and paid $200 to have it fixed. I would not have given it a second thought but... one day I went to use the lens after hardly using it at all - maybe 200 shots over the course of 2 years, and the new ring was cracked in the same place - leaving the lens again unusable. It's obviously a manufacturing defect in design or materials. This time I sent it to KEH and had it fixed for $125. They told me they had seen the problem many times. Hopefully this new ring is made of better materials that will last longer. Hopefully Nikon will not make expensive products with parts that easily break.

I used 80~200mm AFD ED Nikkor lens for the past four years on my Nikon F5 and FM2.One of the best lenses Nikkor has made, and may be the best among other brands of its range.I can enlarge its photos up to 28X18.5 inch and may be larger with V-good to excellent results.Its ED(Extra Low Dispersion)element/?s is/?are working perfectly.The only drowback of this lens is its weight specially when used with a heavey wieghted camera body.

When you open your box the lens case is pretty cool, but then I just put it up on a shelf where I keep all my other Nikon boxes in case I need to sell it some day. It's true what everyone says, it feels really good hefting a hunk of metal, I was grinning ear to ear. I guess because the lens is so solid that I immediately noticed the cheap looking plastic ring for switching between manual and auto focus, it's really out of place. How do you say oops in Japanese? Now that lame-beuracratic-cost-cutting-blunder aside, it's pretty dang sexy.

I was really nervous for my first shot since I've seen a few posts about "soft" focus on some rogue lenses out there. Mine was crisp and sharp and beautiful. Yes beautiful. I have since shot graduation, families, fashion, babies and bikinis with this lens and each time I view the RAW files at 100% in post I'm so satisfied with the sharpness and pleasing quality this lens sees with.

Now, as to the weight, don't think for a minute that you can hand hold this in low light and get good results. Yeah yeah, if you crank your ISO into sandstorm mode maybe you can get the shot but it's not going to look pro. Or if you are an arteeest and want a little blur motion, then fine. But listen, I'm a fit dude with some meaty hooks and I was still a bit shaky after an hour of holding it up to my eye. You've got to tripod this baby. It's worth it though.

My conclusion is that if you have a nice tripod and aren't going to be rough with the plastic ring or threads, you should buy it, it has many applications. Heck I'm even using it for landscapes now. I give it 4 stars overall because it does hunt a little more than I like in low light and of course the stupid plastic ring. Optics I give it 5 stars. And my own category, pleasing intangible image quality, 5 stars. So if I could have my money back right now and walk away from it, I would not... I would buy it again and have no desire to drop an additional $700 bucks for the new VR version. It's my new fav. Hope this helps you make your decision!

It's hard to call this lens inexpensive, unless you compare it to Nikon's 70-200mm AF-S VR2.

If you are in the market for a pro telephoto lens, your basic choices are the Nikon 70-200 at over twice the price, or this lens. You can also look at 3rd party offerings by Sigma and Tamron, which are in the ballpark of this lens.

When deciding on this lens, the two lenses I could afford were this one and the Sigma 70-200 f2.8. The Nikon did cost about 25% more, but recently Sigma jacked up the price of their lens - presumably because of popularity, they could do so. Now, there is only about a 15% difference in the cost of the two lenses. The Sigma lens I was considering was the less expensive - the 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG APO Macro HSM II (non Vibration Reduction version), which was in the same ballpark of price as the Nikon.

So I chose the Nikon over the Sigma for the reasons I state below. But I have to say that you could not probably go wrong with either lens, as both of them are pro caliber.

First, this lens is AF, not AF-S, which means if you have a D40, D3100, or D5100, you won't be able to auto-focus it.

This is Nikon's current production version of this lens, and is superior I think to the older versions (with the possible exception of the short-lived AF-S version). It is still made by Nikon, probably because of the high cost of their flagship 70-200. The lens is an older design, so it doesn't have VR (Vibration Reduction) or AF-S (in-lens motor).

Consequently the focusing system is slower, but I believe it has been unfairly criticized as so. Perhaps it's closes competitor is Sigma's 70-200 f2.8, which has an internal lens focus motor, so it will work with the less expensive Nikon cameras, while this one will not.

Other criticism has been that many of today's cameras that have focus motors do not have focus motors strong enough to rapidly focus this lens, especially the advanced amateur cameras such as the D90, D7000, etc.

Nikon has made several versions of this lens over the years. The earlier lenses, known as "push-pull", zoomed by pulling the lens out, or pushing it in. Those lenses were known to have notoriously slow auto focusing, and perhaps much of the criticism of this lenses focusing speed may be due to those models.

In later years, Nikon changed from a push-pull model to a rotating ring to change the zoom. These are known as "two ring" models. Nikon also improved the focus speed of these lenses. The current offering from Nikon - and the one I have - is the two-ring model.

Before I purchased this lens, I reviewed several YouTube videos that performed "focus tests" on several different models of the Nikon 80-200 f2.8 as well as the Sigma 70-200 f2.8. The focus test consisted of leaving the lens cap on, then depressing the shutter release 1/2 way, which forces the lens to cycle the focus range, from stop-to-stop.

I also tried this on my lens as soon as UPS dropped it off. I am using a Nikon D90, and using a stopwatch, I tested the lens focus speed, and since I don't have any of the other lenses, I timed the several YouTube videos showing different lens/camera combinations. Here are the results:

1. My D90 with the Nikon 80-200 lens: 1.1 seconds.
2. YouTube D90 with Nikon 80-200 (two ring zoom): 1.0~1.1 seconds.
3. YouTube D90 with old Nikon 80-200 (push pull zoom): 1.6 seconds.
4. YouTube D300 with old Nikon 80-200 (push pull zoom): 3.4 seconds.
5. YouTube D90 with current model Sigma 70-200: 1.4 seconds.

And for comparison...
YouTube (unknown camera) with Nikon 70-200 VR1: 0.6 seconds.

The results were enough to convince me that there is not a focus speed problem, especially compared with the Sigma 70-200 (even though the Sigma lens has it's own focus motor).

Another surprise is that while different cameras focused the same lens at different speeds, the D90 was actually faster than the more expensive D300. However, I'll caveat that in test 3, I could not absolutely verify that the lens was truly a push-pull model. The focus speed does suggest it might be the later two-ring model.

And just for comparison sake, I also looked at the more expensive AF-S Nikon VR1 (which is not the current model). I could not find a test on YouTube for the VR2, but I would expect it to be as fast as the VR1 or faster.

While the Nikon 80-200 is slower than the newest Nikon models, that is to be expected. And my choice was between the Nikon 80-200 vs. the Sigma 70-200, and for those two lenses, the Nikon certainly holds it's own.

I also believe Nikon's optics to be better than the Sigma's, along with brand recognition and resale. Since the current model has been in production for 13 years, considering a used lens could be any one of those year models. And the resale for these lenses in excellent condition averaged about 75% of a new one, I'd say the lens holds it's resale very well.

In contrast, the Sigma lost value more rapidly, and while I did not find a lot of used ones, the resale was already about 60%-70% of a new one. Not a big difference between the two brands, but considering the Sigma version is a lot newer, it's resale value may not likely hold up as well as it ages. Resale value in itself is not necessarily an indicator of the quality of the lens, and probably has as much to do with brand recognition.

One thing that kept nagging at me is that I intend this to be the final purchase for this type of lens. Many of the folks that used the Sigma have made the comment that the lens gets you started in the pro area, and when you go to resell it, you will get your money out of the lens when it is time to upgrade.

I suppose the same could be said for the Nikon, but I don't plan on having to upgrade in the future, as at this point, as an amateur photographer, while VR and AF-S are nice, it's not in the budget to pay double the price for a lens with those features.

One other pesky issue I found with used Nikons is that the Manual/Auto switch tends to break. A lot of older lenses had this problem. It is plastic for some reason, and seems to be a weak point. Whether or not this holds true for current production I'll have to wait to find out, but the lens does have a 5 year warranty.

Other factors.

The Sigma lens is known as a Macro lens, with a minimum-focus distance of 3.3ft, and a weight of 48.3 oz. and a length 7.25" and a dia of 3.3" dia.

In comparison, I was surprised that the Nikon also has a Macro function, but it must be put into manual focus mode to do so (which is not untypical of a Macro lens). For the Nikon, the normal minimum-focus distance is 5.9ft, with a Macro distance of 4.9ft. The weight of the Nikon is 45.8 oz, and a length 7.3" and a dia of 3.4" dia.

Neither of the lenses has a large advantage over the other in this regard.

So it all comes down to use. The Nikon lens is known be very sharp, and to have creamy-smooth bokeh, and it surely lived up to those superlatives in my initial use. I am very pleased with this purchase. In contrast, the Sigma has been well reported to be a bit soft at the longer focal lengths. But like anyone else, this is scuttlebutt, and how much it has to do with the truth I cannot say as I don't have that lens.

Another issue with the D90 and the Nikon lens is that there is a known limitation that if the lens is used at the minimum 80mm, and used at the minimum 5.9ft focus distance, the camera may think the lens is in focus, when it is not (it's in the D90 manual). In those situations, you can always go into manual/macro mode to focus the lens.

However, I have not experienced the mis-focusing. Not to say it won't happen, but so far, I have not had the occasion to see it. At any rate, this is an event that is not likely to occur much, given my photo habits. I guess this is what makes this a great, but not perfect lens.

One thing I found, especially with shooting telephoto at f2.8, that you have to re-learn how to focus the camera, and quite possibly to manually select your focus point. If the lens is not focusing on your intended subject, at F2.8, you may very well get an out of focus photo. But this is characteristic with all of the lenses of this type.

In conclusion, when comparing the Sigma and Nikon lenses, if you have a D70 or better (camera body with internal focusing motor), you will love this lens. If you have an entry-level Nikon (D3100, D5100, etc), the Sigma is probably going to be your choice, unless you want to spend 4 times as much for the Nikon 70-200 lens as your camera cost.

Besides, my son has a D3000, and he won't be able to borrow my lens.

This lens is super sharp and well built. Yes it is heavy but I expected that for an F2.8 lens. I have used it twice now for photographing motorsports and it produced sharp shots due to it's excellent optics and the ability to increase the shutter speed. I use it on a Nikon D200 and it focuses very quickly and accurately and balances well with the MB-D200 battery pack attached. If it has a weakness it would be the switch for manual focus; not a deal breaker but an inconvenience. Overall I gave it top marks because of it's excellent image taking ability and durable design. I expect to have this lens for a long time.

Pros:
Crystal clear images. Large aperture is also a handy thing. The build seems as solid as anyone would need. The optical quality is a bit better than the ultra zooms in the same price range. Finally, with the designated hood, on a large DSLR, you'll get respect regardless of your skill level. It looks classy.
Cons:
Like everyone else has said for years, it's heavy, and with the lighter, newer lenses coming out, I imagine this one will be purchased less and less. Don't buy this lens for use of macro setting, it's not as close you may need.

Comments:
Don't even think about buying a previous version of this lens without the tripod collar on it. That's your only prayer of getting sharp images, because of the weight of the lens.
This is awesome, and more than worth the money. You may never need to upgrade unless you really find it necessary for the VR function on the new stuff.

The lens shown here is great. I just got mine the other day and right when I saw it i loved it. I was recommended to this product by a friend of mine. I really wanted a fast lens for sport and indoor photography and I didnt have over $1000 so this ruled out the nikon 70-200 f2.8 lens. I only tried it out on a handful of occasions but the results so far was amazing. The actual lens is very big and very heavy. I dont think the pictures here do the lens very much justice. I recommend this lens to anyone who shoots pictures in poor lighting or just wants that nice soft blurry background for portrait pics.