80-200 AF F/2.8 push pull zoom

Ian Stuart Forsyth

Senior Member
Messages
4,337
Reaction score
3,022
Location
CA
I am looking for something in the 80-200 F2.8 FF range as a beater lens that can be left in the truck so I can have something with me. I have spotted several around for very good prices I was just wondering the image quality I can expect on the D800
 
All the 80-200 / 70-200 F2.8 optics are good. If anything, the 80-200 is better overall than the 70-200 vr I, due to the vr vignetting in the corners.

I loved my push-pull which is the AF-D version. The AF version apparently has AF that is twice as slow as the AF-D, which is kind of leisurely. Optically, it's not got that crystal clarity of the new nano vr II, and it is kind of soft wide open, but it's very nice by F3.5. Just try not to shoot wider than F3.5 in situations where sharpness is very important and you should be happy with one.

They are built well, but the M-AF ring has a tendency to break if you switch back and forth between manual and AF a lot. (Mine is still fine. Purchased new in 1995 and only relegated to backup status last year when I got the 70-200 vr II.)
 
All the 80-200 / 70-200 F2.8 optics are good. If anything, the 80-200 is better overall than the 70-200 vr I, due to the vr vignetting in the corners.

I loved my push-pull which is the AF-D version. The AF version apparently has AF that is twice as slow as the AF-D, which is kind of leisurely. Optically, it's not got that crystal clarity of the new nano vr II, and it is kind of soft wide open, but it's very nice by F3.5. Just try not to shoot wider than F3.5 in situations where sharpness is very important and you should be happy with one.

They are built well, but the M-AF ring has a tendency to break if you switch back and forth between manual and AF a lot. (Mine is still fine. Purchased new in 1995 and only relegated to backup status last year when I got the 70-200 vr II.)
 
It is a very good lens and very sharp except for wide open at 200mm where it looses a bit of contrast and sharpness. AF speed is good for general photography but not for birds in flight, running children or sports. Used price is a bargain, i think it's actually the best nikon lens you can buy for this amount of cash.
 
It is a very good lens and very sharp except for wide open at 200mm where it looses a bit of contrast and sharpness. AF speed is good for general photography but not for birds in flight, running children or sports. Used price is a bargain, i think it's actually the best nikon lens you can buy for this amount of cash.
Mine is the 2 ring AF-D, allegedly the same optics as the push pull.

I echo the sentiments above two posters.

Yes, for the push pull, about the same money in used excellent condition as a 'standard' 50mm 1.4 lens new.

Ha....! Talk about a deal.

(I use mine on a d300 but will hopefully, also use it eventually on a D810 or D750).
 
To be more specific on the previous question,

at f2.8 it is not sharp and it

gets sharper at f5.6 which is of my concern

I do have a nikkor zoom 70-300mm afs vr f4.5-f5.6

I like to have a zoom w/ f2.8

This 80-200 seems to be sharp at f5.6

I have d800e
 
As stated previously, the push-pull 80-200, 2.8 AF-D and non D and the 2-ring are essentially the same lens optically. Although lenses, especially zooms will vary, and an older used model may have some slop, I wouldn't assume that you will be disappointed by the wide open performance of the 80-200. Wide open contrast is a bit lower than the 70-200s but resolution is generally high enough that PP can give you a satisfying image. I have had three push-pulls and two 2-rings and AF inconsistency was a bigger issue for me than lack of sharpness at f/2.8. I have compared my current 80-200, 2-ring, to a supposedly calibrated and adjusted 70-200 VRII and for my use the overall IQ differences were inconsistent and minor. As long as I can get texture in the subjects eyes, I consider the lens to be acceptably sharp. The 80-200 may very well be the lens for you, they are still a professional grade tool. Aloha.
 
As stated previously, the push-pull 80-200, 2.8 AF-D and non D and the 2-ring are essentially the same lens optically. Although lenses, especially zooms will vary, and an older used model may have some slop, I wouldn't assume that you will be disappointed by the wide open performance of the 80-200. Wide open contrast is a bit lower than the 70-200s but resolution is generally high enough that PP can give you a satisfying image. I have had three push-pulls and two 2-rings and AF inconsistency was a bigger issue for me than lack of sharpness at f/2.8. I have compared my current 80-200, 2-ring, to a supposedly calibrated and adjusted 70-200 VRII and for my use the overall IQ differences were inconsistent and minor. As long as I can get texture in the subjects eyes, I consider the lens to be acceptably sharp. The 80-200 may very well be the lens for you, they are still a professional grade tool. Aloha.
Thank you
 
It is a very good lens and very sharp except for wide open at 200mm where it looses a bit of contrast and sharpness. AF speed is good for general photography but not for birds in flight, running children or sports. Used price is a bargain, i think it's actually the best nikon lens you can buy for this amount of cash.
Thank you
 
It is a very good lens and very sharp except for wide open at 200mm where it looses a bit of contrast and sharpness. AF speed is good for general photography but not for birds in flight, running children or sports. Used price is a bargain, i think it's actually the best nikon lens you can buy for this amount of cash.
Mine is the 2 ring AF-D, allegedly the same optics as the push pull.

I echo the sentiments above two posters.

Yes, for the push pull, about the same money in used excellent condition as a 'standard' 50mm 1.4 lens new.

Ha....! Talk about a deal.
This was what I was thinking

For wildlife and BIF I have the 200-400 II. my main use of the 80-200 would be for landscape, catch focus and mostly static subjects

(I use mine on a d300 but will hopefully, also use it eventually on a D810 or D750).
 
at f2.8 it is not sharp
What makes you say this?

--
Stacey
I saw the chart on center and corner sharpness results of f2.8 and f5.6
Yes, these are processed (from RAW), but so are OOC JPEG's that some use to compare lenses... and I have some sharp 2.8's somewhere....... at 135mm 2.8 and shorter it is quite sharp enough. Only at 2.8 near to and 200mm it loses contrast.

And these print very well, at least to 8x10.

f3.5
f3.5

f3.2
f3.2

f3.5
f3.5

f4
f4

f4
f4

f3.5
f3.5

f4
f4

--
Wishing You Good Light.
 
Last edited:
at f2.8 it is not sharp
What makes you say this?

--
Stacey
I saw the chart on center and corner sharpness results of f2.8 and f5.6
Does this look blurry or unusable to you? And this was shot at 185mm at 1/60 @ f2.8 handheld.



That is the problem with -only- relying on "a chart". The below test seem to agree with me, it's quite good wide open but of course a couple of stops down it's better, almost every lens made is.


--
Stacey
 
It IS a very nice photo

Thank you for it

It helps in making a decision
 
Stacey,

Lovely photo.

One question , may sound VERY weird, but here goes. Do you find any difference in sharpness with your 80-200 at 2.8, at long range (such as 185mm) with your D700 FF vs your APS-C camera.

Yes, optics in a specific lens are its optics, there should not be a difference, but I am just wondering on something I read at some point re APS-C and FF.

Thanks!!!

--
Wishing You Good Light.
 
Last edited:
Stacey,

Lovely photo.

One question , may sound VERY weird, but here goes. Do you find any difference in sharpness with your 80-200 at 2.8, at long range (such as 185mm) with your D700 FF vs your APS-C camera.

Yes, optics in a specific lens are its optics, there should not be a difference, but I am just wondering on something I read at some point re APS-C and FF.
It's seems fine on APS-C but then I'm also not a pixel peeper. I would suspect that on a D7100 vs D700 you would start seeing the age of this lens, especially on the long end wide open if you are heavily cropping. Then again I haven't tested this.

One lens I have noticed seems to be more of a "full frame lens" is the 58. For some reason, it seems to lose some of the "magic" used on a crop camera.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top