Nikon Rumors Forum

where there’s smoke there’s forum fire

1. 

   Nikoner
   

   preferred member
   Joined: Apr '10
   Posts: 171

   offline

   I have a D90 and shoot lot of indoor sports (no flash allowed) and lighting sucks. I have used a borrowed 70-200 2.8 VR1 before and was reasonable impressed with its performance. Now I am looking to buy a fast telezoom to owe.

   I don’t need VR. I have read reviews of both 80-200 f/2.8 the D version and the AF-s version, and understand that the AF-s has some more ghosting and is heavier. But it is supposed to auto focus slightly faster, has better weather sealing, and has the AF lock buttons, also teleconvertors can be used with poor results, but is also mostly plastic as opposed to D's full metal jacket.

   Weight does not bother me but I don’t understand why nikon would discontinue a later model in favor of older technology especially if the performance remains unchanged. (are the flaws in AF-s that pronounced?)

   Should I buy a used 80-200 2.8 AF-s @ $1000.00 or a new 80-200 2.8D (2 ring version) for the same price? (Used v/s Gray market, so warranty is a non issue)

   Can you please post your thoughts, experiences, advice, and opinions on both versions of 80-200 2.8

   Thanks!

   Posted 2 years ago #
2. 

   Drab
   

   preferred member
   Joined: Aug '10
   Posts: 540

   offline

   I believe you are comparing apples to oranges.

   The real question should be new vs new or used vs used.

   Then you're talking Used AFS @ $1000 or Used AFD @ $700.

   Despite what Ken Rockwell says about the pricing of the AFD (used = beat up and almost new price), I have seen no evidence to substantiate him. Five 80-200 AFDs have passed through my hands in the last two years, and all (but one) of them were in pristine condition. The most I ever paid was $750.

   I've never owned them both at the same time, so I can only say I don't feel the AF-D is slower, but maybe it objectively is.

   Posted 2 years ago #
3. 

   studio460
   

   preferred member
   Joined: May '10
   Posts: 1,231

   offline

   Some years ago, I bought a used AF Nikkor 80-400mm f/2.8D push-pull zoom for $400. Recently, I was lucky enough to finally snag a mint-condition, refurbished AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G VR I. It's sharp as hell (my old 'D' lens wasn't nearly as sharp), and handles much better than my old push-pull lens. It's virtually always mounted on its tripod foot onto a monopod (older 80-200 zooms don't have a tripod foot--a major disadvantage), and the VR is always "on," since I rarely shoot this lens on a tripod. I actually wanted the VR I version, over the newer VR II version, for its extended focal length at short focusing distances. IMO, the VR I version of the 70-200mm is far superior to my old push-pull in every way. To me, it's night and day.

   However, many retailers are still selling refurbished 70-200mm VR I zooms for as much as $1,800 USD (mine was only $1,300), so I can see where an old 'D' version would be attractive alternative. At less than 20% of the price of new VR II ($400-500 vs. $2,200), they're quite a bargain.

   Edit: Sorry, I just re-read your post and realized that you're not talking about either lens I described above (so, nevermind). FWIW, however, I would opt for the AF-S version, myself.

   Posted 2 years ago #
4. 

   TaoTeJared
   

   preferred member
   Joined: Apr '10
   Posts: 2,422

   offline

   AF-S versions of almost every nikon lens are much better for sports and tracking subjects. The internal focusing motors snap, lock and track more consistently for more in focus shots. The manual override is also key to pre-focusing.

   I have the 70-200mm VR as well and it snaps and locks fast. I know you said you don't need the VR but the internal motor was the understated upgrade on this lens. The worth of that is something you only know for your shooting style.

   Best of Luck!

   Posted 2 years ago #
5. 

   studio460
   

   preferred member
   Joined: May '10
   Posts: 1,231

   offline

   What Tao said . . .

   Posted 2 years ago #
6. 

   Drab
   

   preferred member
   Joined: Aug '10
   Posts: 540

   offline

   AF-S versions of almost every nikon lens are much better for sports and tracking subjects. The internal focusing motors snap, lock and track more consistently for more in focus shots.

   EDIT: If the following comes across as pissy or prissy I'm sorry, it is unintentional.

   Whereas the 50 1.4 D focuses and tracks faster than the 50 1.4 S.

   (In an apples to apples comparison where the mass of glass being moved is equal) Focus speed is very dependent on where on the speed-accuracy continuum Nikon chooses to be. There is a power budget AFS lenses have to stay within just as there is a torque budget AFD lenses must stay within.

   The prefocus bit I can't argue with at all. And if you're saying the 80-200S is faster than the D I must accept as I have no evidence to the contrary.

   Posted 2 years ago #
7. 

   TaoTeJared
   

   preferred member
   Joined: Apr '10
   Posts: 2,422

   offline

   I now own both the 50s and can say the AFS not any slower and more importantly locks and tracks much quicker and far better than the AFD.

   The huge thing I see is that in Continuous mode with AF priority, I do get much more in focus shots than the older AFD either the 1.4 or 1.8. I have experienced this with every AFD vs AFS lens. In practice what I found is with the AFD = 10 shots where 2 are sharp vs the AFS = 8 shots where 5 are sharp. Some may see that as slower since fewer shots were fired, I see it as 2 1/2 times better and the AFD version was firing off bad shots.

   I think what Nikoner is looking for is the version vs. cost vs. successful shots. $750 vs. $1000 vs. $1500. If one pre-focuses and anticipates a shot, I believe the AFS would still be better since it will lock that split second faster but worth $250 maybe, $750?. If a shooter does not pre-focus much the $250 is worth it and the $750 for better AFS would be a possible option.

   Posted 2 years ago #
8. 

   kanuck
   

   preferred member
   Joined: Apr '09
   Posts: 1,405

   offline

   The older 80-200mm AF ED D push pull can easily be had for $350-400 but it is super slow for focusing and weighs a ton. It can't be compared to any 70-200mm lens. Are you sure you don't need VR for the indoor sports you shoot? I have found it to be very useful. The newer 80-200 with tripod collar is a nice lens, but I found it also a little slow for action and the VR would have really helped in poor lighting conditions. The 70-200mm VR I can be found used for a good price now that the VR II was released. Just be careful because there are a lot of banged up ones for sale as they are the bread and butter for most photographers.

   Posted 2 years ago #
9. 

   Nikoner
   

   preferred member
   Joined: Apr '10
   Posts: 171

   offline

   Drab: You are right the comparison should be more used v/s used, I am not concerned about cosmetic beauty of the lens (I assume that your reference to being in pristine condition) but just the speed of auto focus on my D90 motor.

   Studio & Tao: I have used the 70-200 and was very pleased with the focusing speed, it was just like magic. However, since I don’t need the VR, the less complicated the lens, less are its chances for something to go wrong with it. Plus of course the price. I do pre-focus as much as I can, but often find myself following the action ad-hoc. I like AF-s but was intrigued why Nikon would choose to continue with older D and shut down the improved AF-s.

   Kanuck: I think I read it in some manual somewhere that VR would decrease the light by couple of f stops. As is our indoor arena is poorly lit with cycling lights, enabling VR would hurt even more. I also noticed that when i tried the 70-200 with VR on, the pics came out markedly poor. But I only had it for a few days so can’t say that with authority.

   AF-s would be good but that $250 I save with D version will go towards buying a used D700 late next year. (and then the focusing part would be moot as the D700 motor is much more robust)

   Posted 2 years ago #
10. 

    Roscoe
    

    new member
    Joined: Jan '11
    Posts: 1

    offline

    VR is not good for sports. Think of VR as a tripod substitute. I stabilizes the lens, does nothing for freezing action.

    That said, I have an 80-200 ED lens and the only reason I'd replace it is because it can't take my teleconverter (AF-S only). I've never had the AF-S version but I heard it was better. Like mentioned earlier, I can't imagine why Nikon would discontinue this lens unless they thought it was competing too strongly against the 70-200 VR.

    Posted 2 years ago #
11. 

    veloce
    

    junior member
    Joined: Dec '10
    Posts: 9

    offline

    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.

    Posted 2 years ago #
12. 

    TaoTeJared
    

    preferred member
    Joined: Apr '10
    Posts: 2,422

    offline

    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.

    Posted 2 years ago #
13. 

    micron49
    

    member
    Joined: Sep '10
    Posts: 20

    offline

    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.

    Posted 2 years ago #
14. 

    kanuck
    

    preferred member
    Joined: Apr '09
    Posts: 1,405

    offline

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

    Posted 2 years ago #
15. 

    Drab
    

    preferred member
    Joined: Aug '10
    Posts: 540

    offline

    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.

    Posted 2 years ago #
16. 

    bobcooley
    

    new member
    Joined: Nov '10
    Posts: 3

    offline

    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!

    Posted 2 years ago #
17. 

    TaoTeJared
    

    preferred member
    Joined: Apr '10
    Posts: 2,422

    offline

    +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.

    Posted 2 years ago #
18. 

    kyoshinikon
    

    preferred member
    Joined: Jan '10
    Posts: 1,200

    offline

    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...

    Posted 2 years ago #
19. 

    Testing123
    

    preferred member
    Joined: Oct '10
    Posts: 232

    offline

    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.

    Posted 2 years ago #
20. 

    Nikoner
    

    preferred member
    Joined: Apr '10
    Posts: 171

    offline

    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.

    Posted 2 years ago #
21. 

    micron49
    

    member
    Joined: Sep '10
    Posts: 20

    offline

    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.

    Posted 2 years ago #
22. 

    casperwb
    

    preferred member
    Joined: Jan '11
    Posts: 558

    offline

    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

    Posted 2 years ago #
23. 

    Drab
    

    preferred member
    Joined: Aug '10
    Posts: 540

    offline

    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.

    Posted 2 years ago #
24. 

    TaoTeJared
    

    preferred member
    Joined: Apr '10
    Posts: 2,422

    offline

    @ 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.

    Posted 2 years ago #
25. 

    Testing123
    

    preferred member
    Joined: Oct '10
    Posts: 232

    offline

    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!

    Posted 2 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.