Does anybody have experience with the 80-200 2.8 AF-d (new) with a D7000 and a teleconverter? I'm strongly considering buying this lens as an all-around lens but would like to extend it with a teleconverter for an upcoming trip to Africa. I understand this lens is incompatible with a Nikon TC but the Kenko pro300 would work just fine. I'm getting great advice by bloggers, online reviewers and a very reliable local source (a world class photographer) that this lens is very sharp.
tx

Rx4Photo said:
Thanks TTJ. Today I took the camera and lens to one of the major camera shops where I live and they said something similar to what you're saying. He said it's OK and actually better that it fits that way because too tight of a fit would result in sheering away at the metal mount which would be worse.

What was funny is that after he saw that it was a 80-200mm Nikkor he asked how'd I keep it in such good condition all these years. I said "well, it's new - just ordered it last week." Think I'm starting to like the character of that lens.

Yes the slight cross-sectional play is normal as long as it's still somewhat tight.

The 80-200mm f/2.8D ED is an amazing lens and a great alternative to the 70-200 VRI or VRII. As long as you know it's limitations. I actually own one that I bought brand new less than a year ago. It will last 100 years if you take good care of it since it doesn't have any AF-S motor or VR to get destroyed 10-20 years from now.

Thanks TTJ. Today I took the camera and lens to one of the major camera shops where I live and they said something similar to what you're saying. He said it's OK and actually better that it fits that way because too tight of a fit would result in sheering away at the metal mount which would be worse.

What was funny is that after he saw that it was a 80-200mm Nikkor he asked how'd I keep it in such good condition all these years. I said "well, it's new - just ordered it last week." Think I'm starting to like the character of that lens.

That's just called "character." There is more play with the cheaper* bodies and with older lenses as well. Put the two together and it becomes noticeable. My older (6+ yr) lenses all do that. Since it is not moving away from the focal plane it doesn't have any effect of the image.

(Cheaper bodies - there is more play in my D300 than a D3 for sure. My D80 felt "sloppy" with older lenses but never had an issue.)

TaoTeJared said:
What do you mean by "twist" and what type of movement?

When the motor engages on some of my Old glass I can feel it engage but I wouldn't call it a twist. Is that what you are referring too?

Actually what I mean is once the lens is locked onto the camera with a click - I can tell it's firmly locked on - but if I hold the camera in one hand and lens in the other, I can feel a little play (very minimal) when I twist the 2 in opposite directions. I don't think it affects image quality a bit but wasn't sure if it would. None of my others lenses have ever exhibited this. Just wondering.

I posted above about my used purchase. Love the lens, but guess what...I get focus errors. Camera does not shoot or respond. What fixes it is that tiny twist I think you are talking about.

I could probably have it serviced, but as long as twisting works I'm ok.

My twist is about perhaps 1 degree of play in the AF-D lens. You need to turn the lens while gripping it...not a motor shake/twist...just play in the connection.

What do you mean by "twist" and what type of movement?

When the motor engages on some of my Old glass I can feel it engage but I wouldn't call it a twist. Is that what you are referring too?

Let me ask ... Is it normal or occasionally normal for there to be a tiny-tiny almost undetectable bit of twist movement after attaching the "New" Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-D (2 ring) lens to a camera? It's the first lens to have ever done that on this camera - D7000. I'm in the process of evaluating this lens from an on-line retailer and not sure if it's something to be concerned about. FWIW, the VR2 version is way too pricey and I don't like the length of the VR1 version. This lens is crazy sharp. Thanks.

Don't assume that every Nikon body is or reacts the same. All of the bodies may have similar specs, but the systems are all configured and tweaked for that particular series of body.

I think it was just something on D80s. Don't take it to extremes, I just noticed of about 200 pic drop in picture ability or about a 20% drop in battery life if that was the only lens I was using.

I think D80 was one of the very few evil stepchildren that Nikon as released. Decent camera, and I usually overlook many beloved idiosyncrasies except that camera had all of my pet peeves in one system. There were allot of little things/issues with the D80 that I have never seen on any other Nikon camera except a few cropped up on the D40x.

I have the 70-300 AF-s VR and have used it for just as extensive duration outside as I have the 80-200 AF-d inside. From the first couple of days of use I did not notice any marked difference in battery usage by AF-d. Could the VR and SWM in the lighter AF-s be responsible for being at par with the heavy motor driven 80-200D?

Never noticed (D50) an AF-D (20-35 was my "my baby" lens back then) vs AF-S (18-70) battery life difference myself.

The D50 had a marathon running battery!

@ Drab - That would be the same one - albeit 3 years apart.

I never said there was a connection between the two nor do I think there was. It drained the battery quite quickly when using it. That was mostly the same for all AFDs I used with it vs the AF-s lenses.

TaoTeJared said:
The AFD is certainly a great buy and a great lens. It will push your D90 motor harder than others. My D80 didn't like using the big AFDs but still worked well. Just FYI.

This D80?

From the "Body failures - how often?" thread:

TaoTeJared said:
I had a D80 that I sold to a friend that has some "rXX" error and doesn't AF or anything anymore. I never had a problem and shot over 40k photos with it. They borrowed it for a week to look at it and were quite quick to buy it. The AF motor sounded a little grind-y when I got it back and they only shot 40 photos over 2 weeks. I am thinking they knew they did something to it.

Me suspects the AFD lens was not the culprit. I've not noticed a problem with the 80-200, even on my old D70, it focused just as fast as my x00 series bodies.

Drab said:
EDIT: Complete post revision in a more polite, less confrontational manner.

I find the relevance of "many pros only use the 70-200" lacking.

The 70-200 is a serious attempt by a serious camera company to cover a very popular selection of telephoto focal lengths.

It is designed and built with a very small number of compromises and commands a price reflective of this.

The fact many pros exclusively use the latest iteration of this flagship should be expected, as a pro's calculus is different than a lay person's, and discussion of pro's calculus offers little aid to the OP's decision making. For the OP clearly can not (or chooses not to) afford this minimally compromised lens.

Therefore "selling" the flagship to the OP does not serve the OP's interest, and IMHO serves to make a forum setting less relevant than it should be. There are product brochures enough to sell the wonders of the flagship. The OP asked about compromise solutions and discussion on the pros and cons of compromise solutions are what will aid him.

very nicely put

That's interesting about tight zoom ring. When I was shopping used, the first one I saw was very loose and coupled with a scratchy focus ring, I knew it had been used heavily and also in sandy conditions. I went to the store to feel a new one and then ended up buying a used one that was well cared for and everything felt right.

@kyoshinikon: When you say "old AF-D", "(very slow)", "ridiculously slow on D90"...are you referring to the 2-ring version of the lens? Very few are selling used for the price you stated. I'm curious about your impressions because there was supposedly a substantial difference between the previous AF-D and the 2-ring one. Nikoner and I both seem happy with the focus speed on the ones we bought and we both have D90. It may not be the fastest, but it's not what I would call slow.

Thanks all for your inputs; I bought a used AF-d off of adorama for 712.50 + 25 for a new HB-7 hood. I kept the hood and had to return the lens as the zoom ring was way too tight. No problems going from wide to tele but had to use all four fingers and thumb to move it from any tele to any wide. I ended up buying a new one, and am very happy with it. Auto focusing on D90 is fast and relatively noiseless. Zoom in/out is two finger operation as expected.

Testing123: I have the 85 f/1.8 and absolutely love it, but needed the zoom range for indoor swimming and diving; and equestrian events.

Nikoner, I don't know if you need the zoom or not for your indoor sports, but if you are in the USA you can likely pick up a 180 f/2.8 and a 85 f/1.8 pair used for under $1000.

The 180 is using the two-ring 80-200 AF-D technology, which means slower focus than the AF-S or 70-200.

This combo is a bit niche, just throwing it out there as another option. The 1+1/3 stop advantage at the short end is extremely nice indoors, and I think the downsides are obvious.

I will tell you that the old 80-200mm AF-D while slow (very slow) is much faster than the original AF version. Not being rich I got mine on ebay for between $400 and $500. Admittedly while faster than the 55-200mm I got rid of the 80-200mm is still ridiculously slow on my D90 so I manual focus with it completely. I have had colleagues complain that the new 70-200mm also isn't as sharp as the AF-s 80-200mm...

+1 on buying new for the warranty when spending this much. A CLA will cost you $150 alone and One service repair could cost you easily $300.

My experience on this:

I replaced my 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-D (old version), First I purchased the 70-200 f/2.8 VR1, and took it back almost right away due to heavy vignetting on FX sensors.

I tried both the 80-200mm f/2.8 AFS and the AF-D (ED), and ultimately went with the AF-D (ED). Both were great performers, but the AF-D (ED) was a more solid build.

For a lens of this price/quality - I strongly recommend buying new - you may save a couple hundred with a used lens, but the warranty is worth it, and I've seen far too many used lenses be just a little 'off' that steadily slip into worse and worse focus. If you are ever considering upgrading to a FX sensor, avoid the 70-200 VR1. The VR2 fixes the problem, but is extremely pricey.

Enjoy!

EDIT: Complete post revision in a more polite, less confrontational manner.

I find the relevance of "many pros only use the 70-200" lacking.

The 70-200 is a serious attempt by a serious camera company to cover a very popular selection of telephoto focal lengths.

It is designed and built with a very small number of compromises and commands a price reflective of this.

The fact many pros exclusively use the latest iteration of this flagship should be expected, as a pro's calculus is different than a lay person's, and discussion of pro's calculus offers little aid to the OP's decision making. For the OP clearly can not (or chooses not to) afford this minimally compromised lens.

Therefore "selling" the flagship to the OP does not serve the OP's interest, and IMHO serves to make a forum setting less relevant than it should be. There are product brochures enough to sell the wonders of the flagship. The OP asked about compromise solutions and discussion on the pros and cons of compromise solutions are what will aid him.

+1 for TaoTeJared, there is a reason that many working pros only bring the 70-200mm VR lens out for work.

I just picked up a used 80-200mm AF-D (2 ring) version. My concerns were similar having a D90 as well: focus speed. I very much welcome this thread.

I asked camera store guys in Boulder about possible different strength motors between a D90 and a higher end body and they sounded like they never thought or would have suspected such...I still assume the higher end bodies likely have tougher motors.

Above said, the lens is wonderfully sharp and does focus quickly. I have 2 other "D" lenses and they perform similarly. I also have the AF-S 35m 1.8 which I feel focuses slower than the 50mm 1.8D and hence the other D lenses. One problem with the "D"s is when they hunt, they really hunt and it can be annoying.

As for VR, the 2.8 is not a miracle in low light unless you jack the ISO...remember that the longer focal range means the harder to hold the camera steady (inverse rule). Plus this thing weighs a bunch. You'll rarely get indoor (i.e. household) light permitting anything close to 1/200 (even 1/80 for the short end was tough for me this holiday). I bought for sharpness, bokeh, and use outdoors which I think it will do great. Indoors, I plan to use as portrait lens for which I will use flash.

To answer OP's question: I would stay away from the used 80-200 AF-S and save $400 more for the 70-200 VR1 at minimum. In my research, I have not found one comment saying the 80-200 is better than the 70-200, and the VR is worth something. I would avoid also the NEW 80-200mm AF-D ($1000-1100) because you are paying the higher price due to recent increases for a (wonderful, yet) compromise lens. Maybe do what I did and look for the right used AF-D at $700-750 which I think delivers the best of both worlds...you get the quality you need (no VR as you state), very acceptable focus performance and save some cash for the future. I have no regrets seeing the resale value should not drop significantly.

Cheers.

Let's correct a couple of things:
There is zero light reduction due to VR. Many of the VRs are consumer level that have a min of F5.6 so you loose stops due to f-stops not VR. That is the only thing I can think of that someone would be talking about.

VR for sports - Works great. VR does not freeze action nor is it intended too.

The AFS version was upgraded to the 70-200 thus discontinuing the old AFS model. The reason they keep it is probably allot simpler than you make it though. It is probably due to simple or similar enough parts for AF and the aperture ring for older camera or scientific applications. I'm assuming it is just like the 60mm AFD which they keep in the lineup. If AFS wasn't working, would Nikon be updating all of it's lenses to it?

The AFD is certainly a great buy and a great lens. It will push your D90 motor harder than others. My D80 didn't like using the big AFDs but still worked well. Just FYI.

It sounds like price is your major concern. Sigma and Tamron both have good 70-200 2.8s. I have used a couple of them and found they are probably just as fast focusing as the AFD. Could be options and may be worth a look. I did use a couple of Tokina's 80-200s and they were slower but that was with my D80.

I have a 80-200 2.8 non D.

It works great on the D700, but very poor on the D90, and somewhat poor compared to the D700 on the D7000

With the vivitar 2x tele convertor, however it works excellent on the D7000, and good optically on the D700, but autofocus on the D700 suffers compared to the D7000. The D7000 autofocuses faster, and doesn't track back and forth like the D700.

I have used the 70-200 briefly, and on the d700 it works great, not night and day compare to the 80-200 on the D700, but on the D90, the 80-200 was a pretty poor lens, flaring out badly, and slow to focus.