Home Forums Gear Photography Nikon 80-200 AF-D f/2.8 lens

Yo,lens gurus!
I am dreaming of a new tele-zoom lens that is rugged, and has a reputation for sharp. My choice seems to be limited to the 80-200 AF-D, without VR. From my experience with my old Nikon 70-210 D lens, keeping the shutter speed above the effective focal length will cancel a lot of shakinesss.

Problem is, at the rece track, I like to show some wheel movement so my cars don't look like a butterfly pinned to a board! That means shutter speed in the 160-250/sec. range.

I have the Nikon 70-300VR, and it is a dandy, but the siren song of the f/2.8 is subtle, and always there, but, CO$T is always a consideration...I did say I'm dreaming, right??...and the 80-200 is significantly le$$ than the newest incarnation of the breed.

Soooo...what is your advice; stay with my 70-300, and enjoy it, or save my pennies for the Big Kahuna..the "pro"lens? What's Cameraland's price for that optic?

Thanx.

I had an older push-pull 80-200 f/2.8 AF-D, without a tripod collar, I would skip it if I were you. The autofocusing is slow, and the manual focusing feel is not as positive as the later, two control ring, versions of the 80-200 f/2.8 that have a tripod collar. They're heavy lenses, and can be hand held and high enough shutter speeds, but I really like them on a monopod. I would not spend any money on VR technology. If you get a good deal on a lens that happens to have it, great, if not, save your money for a good tripod or monopod.

Rob - You might consider the Sigma 70-200 2.8 lens. It isn't the Nikon but it has an outstanding reputation in clarify, color, and focus. I've used mine for almost 4 yers now, on my D200, and love it!! It is under $1000 and gives you a fast lens above the normal/typical consumer lenses

I've seen the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 AFS's used for under $1000 (especially if they're engraved with an ID, as many ex-newspaper lenses are; these show up at www.keh.com from time to time) and that'd be my pick if I were to get another fast zoom. I grew up with Nikkors and am kinda set in my ways

257,

I would certainly opt for the Nikkor 70-200 2.8. It is an awesome piece of glass. I'm not an authority on the usefulness of the VR feature, but I have not heard anyone really bragging on it, or using it for that matter. (You can turn it off)

The VR seems to have really run the price up, I noticed. The previous model ran about $1,600 as I recall. The new one with VR runs about $2,000 and change.

I would probably try to find the previous model without the VR. It has a big advantage over earlier models as it has the Silent Wave Motor which focuses WAAAY faster than the old system.

IMO, I would shy away from independent lens makers. Some have pretty good reputations, but I have never had good experiences with them. Several years ago, we bought 8 of the Sigma 14mm's. Several fell into two pieces within three years or so, and we ended up replacing them all with Nikkor glass, so the plan to save a few bucks ended up costing us way more than just spending the extra for Nikkors from the start. Others I have used just were not as sharp as Nikkors.

Unfortunately, quality isn't cheap and it just keeps going up. Ugghhh!