Is the 80-200 2.8 the next best

I sold my 70-200 and bought an 80-200,I put the cash difference into something else.Yeah, I like the 80-200, I did not use the 70-200 enough to justify keeping such an expensive lens.
 
I have the Af-D one.....:thumbs:
 
scooby00 said:
I can't justify the price of the 70-200VR for the useage it would get .. and the AFS is also expensive , but I really need a bit more reach with a F2.8 lens .. what about the standard version :thinking:

http://www.warehouseexpress.com/product/default.aspx?sku=12909

It gets good writes and looks good for the money :clap:

Anybody have one

Thanks

:nikon:
Click to expand...

I have that, fantastic lens. They come up on ebay sometimes, I got mine for £400. But if you want it brand new then worth the money.
 
Craig2008 said:
Hi all,

Cant stretch to a 70-200 VR to is the 80-200 the next best thing?
Click to expand...

I have the 80-200 AF-D and compared to the 70-200 vr theres no optical difference i found (tested on D3) .. and its as sharp as a razorblade !
 
Thanks all :thumbs:

Looks like I may have to go shopping :woot:

:nikon:
 
I have used a 70-200mm f/2.8 VR extensively and still have a borrowed AFS-D 80-200mm f/2.8.

The 80 is a superb lens, very sharp and good AF speed too.

The 70 I found the colour reproduction far more accurate, under extremely challenging circumstances the 70 wins hands down for me, it doesn't matter how much you tweak the WB, it's never the same.
The 70 is a better lens in my opinion but whether the extra cost is justified depends on your requirements really.

T.
 
scooby00 said:
Thomas .. it's not the AFS version I personally was looking at .. it's the Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 D AF ED Lens

http://www.warehouseexpress.com/product/default.aspx?sku=12909

I can't really justify the extra cash for either of the other two

:nikon:
Click to expand...

The OP hadn't mentioned whether it was AFS or AF-D.

I haven't used a AF-D but I hear they are very similar. :shrug:

In any case it appears there are supply problems with Nikon with the AF-D.

Have you considered buying second hand?

For an AFS you should be looking at the best part of £500-£600.

T.
 
I have been told the sigma is a good lens to.
 
The AF-S is a superb lens if you can find one. I found mine was better balanced than the AF-D and easier to hand hold. I had the AF-D but wasnt happy with it. I didnt like the balance or its tendency to mis focus at 200mm close up. I sold my soul and bought the 70-200VR. Its well worth it....

Allan
 
My only real gripe with the 80-200 AF-D was that it is too slow focussing for motorsport use, that aside it is really nice lens and when the pound was stronger it was an absolute bargain at the price it could be had from HK.

Even now a mint secondhand one at £500 or less is still a hell of a lot of lens for the money. The AF-S version is fairly scarce, but you see them now and again at around £750, but to my mind that's too close to the price of a 70-200 VR to be worth bothering with.
 
I haven't tried either the 80-200 AFD or AFS but there's no way I'd want an AFD because from what I've heard about the focus speed. I mainly do motorsport and have the 70-200 VR. Worth every penny for me! Get the AFS and it's win win. :)

I trialled the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 and to be honest, in short, it was disappointing.
 
Shak .. i don't shoot motorsport so for me it's not worth loosing a bit of focusing speed for the price of the VR .. the 2.8 AFD I think will be the one for me
 
the 80-200 AF-D is a pro lens - excellent in all respets - if you don't need VR it's every bit as good at half the price.
 
i have a sigma 70-200, only used a couple of times, for the same reason i dont want to stretch to the Nikon VR version

found it really good and sharp but dont really use it, will put up some demo pics once i go out and take some
 
I used an old one touch 80-200 f2.8 the other week and it still produces cracking results.
 
I'm saving for the 70-200 VR at the moment, but as I may well get a FX body next year am now not so sure due to people commenting on the vignetting of images using the 70-200 VR on the FX sensor.

Have seen a 80-200 AF-S I and quite like the price.
 
The Sigma and the Tamron are decent lenses. Id invest in either, and you can get good deals on Second Hand ones too!
 
Icee said:
I used an old one touch 80-200 f2.8 the other week and it still produces cracking results.
Click to expand...


i agree, had one and it was good, but i dont think it would have cut it with the motorsport pics i take
 
The 80-200 Nikon is priced the same ish as the Sigma if you shop around

I think I'd rather stay with Nikon

:nikon:
 
PsiFox said:
I'm saving for the 70-200 VR at the moment, but as I may well get a FX body next year am now not so sure due to people commenting on the vignetting of images using the 70-200 VR on the FX sensor.
Click to expand...



I'd heard about that problem on FX sensors as well

:nikon:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top