Nikon f2.8 lens.

drfrallyphotos

drfrallyphotos

Suspended / Banned
Messages
444
Name
Dan Forsyth
Edit My Images
Yes
Hello everyone,

Looking to buy a D300s in the near future and having a look at various lens to go with it. Looking for a 200mm zoom lens for as I mostly shoot football and motorsport. Having found two, I was just wondering if anyone had any for/against comments.

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D ED
http://www.hdewcameras.co.uk/nikon-af-zoom-nikkor-80-200mm-f28d-ed-289-p.asp

Nikon 70-200mm AF-S Nikkor f2.8G ED VR II Lens
http://www.hdewcameras.co.uk/nikon-70-200mm-af-s-nikkor-f28g-ed-vr-ii-lens-498-p.asp

For what is double the price essentially, is it worth it?
Money wise I'm tempted to go for the cheaper option.

I can't see anywhere that says it wouldn't work well with the D300s either?

Thanks.
 
Both lenses will work fine and both are generally highly regarded.

The main difference will be the AF speed with the 80-200 being the slower, and there will be no stabilisation.

For side on motorsport shots the 80-200 should be fine, but once field sports like football come into the equation you may well appreciate the extra speed of the 70-200.

There are other options, nikon did an 80-200 af-s version with improved AF which goes second hand for around £700 and the 70-200 is version 1 which second hand will be around £950.

There's also third party options like sigma. Their latest 70-200 OS gets good reviews, and they do a 120-300mm f 2.8 OS as well which may be worth a look.

Mike.
 
Thanks for your reply, I'll look into the Sigma lens too.

Thanks Daniel
 
The 80-200 lens is very capable and has excellent image quality, the 70-200 VRll is top notch and well worth the money if that bit extra is important to you. Personally I would choose a Nikon 80-200 or 70-200 Vl over a Sigma.
 
The nikon 80-200mm is a fantastic lens and I use a the 2 ring AF-D version for sports and its fine and thats with a d90 driving it so should be even quicker with a d300. Not used a vr2 but hired a vr1 just before I got mine and tbh hardly any difference in image quality although obviously the vr1 focused a bit faster.
 
I have both the 80-200mm AF F2.8 & the 70-200mm VRII F2.8.
Night & day difference.
The first is very sharp but have to keep shutter speed up re focal length
-the VR2 = words just don't describe how good it is..
 
I progressed through the 80-200 to the 80-200 AF-s and found not a lot of difference in them, speed wise. I then sold the 80-200 and bought my, no battered, 70-200VRI which is just starting to stick a little. If funds allow go for the 70-200 VRI. You won't look back. It also come into play very well when shooting close up portraits.
 
I bought a Sigma 70-200 HSM II [non-OS] brand new, and never got on with it. I found it not to be as quick as I expected and it was soft wide open especially at 200mm. I sold it shortly after and bought an old 80-200 Nikon, the push-pull kind. And though it was maybe a tiny bit slower to focus in dim light, noisier and didn't have a tripod collar - the end results were so much nicer. Better contrast, colour rendition and clarity overall, and I found it sharp through the range. I would say it's almost as good optically as the 70-200 VRII that I have now. For the price you can't beat it.
 
drfrallyphotos said:
Looking for a 200mm zoom lens for as I mostly shoot football and motorsport.
Click to expand...

I got the 80-200mm f2.8 based on the recommendations of my neighbour (and his mate - both SPL photographers) They did stress to go for the AF-S though - they obviously know what they talking about so I trusted them and glad I did, it's a fantastic lens.

If money isn't an issue then Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II is even better according to them.
 
f/2.8... or f/4?

Not that I'm going to get one in nearest future, but had decided to choose between the above mentioned. Of course.
And had ended up with the VRII...
biggrin2.gif


But with the new f/4 in play, isn't that really the one to go for?
 
drfrallyphotos said:
Hello everyone,

Looking to buy a D300s in the near future and having a look at various lens to go with it. Looking for a 200mm zoom lens for as I mostly shoot football and motorsport. Having found two, I was just wondering if anyone had any for/against comments.

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D ED
http://www.hdewcameras.co.uk/nikon-af-zoom-nikkor-80-200mm-f28d-ed-289-p.asp

Nikon 70-200mm AF-S Nikkor f2.8G ED VR II Lens
http://www.hdewcameras.co.uk/nikon-70-200mm-af-s-nikkor-f28g-ed-vr-ii-lens-498-p.asp

For what is double the price essentially, is it worth it?
Money wise I'm tempted to go for the cheaper option.

I can't see anywhere that says it wouldn't work well with the D300s either?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

I think you might find the 80-200 to be a bit slow. I just upgraded to the 70-200vr2 from the Sigma 70-200 O.S and am absolutely delighted with it. Yes it's expensive, but well worth it. I just wish I had bought it sooner rather than faffed around with other options.
 
I have had two 80-200 and I dont think they they are that slow in the real world.
 
I've got the 70-200mm VR1. A brilliant lens. They can be bought for around £900 and most of them seem to be in great condition. Could be worth looking at that and save yourself £500.

Ray
 
cambsno said:
I have had two 80-200 and I dont think they they are that slow in the real world.
Click to expand...

Have to agree..I used to use mine on a d90 and thought it was fine but since getting the d300s its even better,no complaints here.
 
Soda Farl said:
I think you might find the 80-200 to be a bit slow.
Click to expand...

I'm also a little confused by this?

If meaning autofocus speed then I can understand as it's the non AF-S being quoted, but for actual lens speed then they are both 2.8, although the VRII can technically make it a faster lens, it's only for certain applications right?
 
even if referring to AF the af-d is no slouch on a d300 etc..I find it more than adequate for sports.Yes the vr versions are faster but the afd is far from unusable
 
I loved my old Af-D 80-200. I think I had more fun using that lens than I ever did with the 70-200 VRII [probably because it was cheap so I didn't expect so much from it?]. I think it was optically just as good, and it wasn't slow in good light. Not as slow as some make out at least. For the price, you cannot beat it. I would think on buying one again if I ever feel the need for a 200 2.8. I just don't use the range enough to justify keeping the 70-200 so I sold it to fund other lenses/primes/macro
 
gman said:
I'm also a little confused by this?

If meaning autofocus speed then I can understand as it's the non AF-S being quoted, but for actual lens speed then they are both 2.8, although the VRII can technically make it a faster lens, it's only for certain applications right?
Click to expand...

Yes af speed.
 
It can be sluggish in dim light, but out on a good bright say say, it's plenty fast enough. Try the lens cap on test though and it'll look very slow indeed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top