User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  3
Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 AF ED

  1. #1
    Member scpleta's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Feb 2009
    Location
    Bendigo
    Posts
    252
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 AF ED

    Hi guys.

    I have a mate who has this lens and had me take it for a try.

    This lens was last manufactured about 20 yrs ago and made in Japan.

    I find the lens quite good for f/5.6 and smaller. f2.8 is not good as the picture is quite hazy. IQ and sharpness are good.

    Now, he is asking me if I could make him an offer. There are some cosmetic issues on the lens though but it operates quite well.

    If you were at my position, would you buy the lens? If yes, how much would you make and offer?

    Thanks, in advance!

    Cheers.

  2. #2
    Administrator ricktas's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Jun 2007
    Location
    Hobart
    Posts
    15,130
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    go to ebay and search for it. see what it is selling for, and then you will know about what to offer.
    "It is one thing to make a picture of what a person looks like, it is another thing to make a portrait of who they are" - Paul Caponigro

    Constructive Critique of my photographs is always appreciated
    Nikon, etc!

    RICK
    My Photography

  3. #3
    Ausphotography Regular swifty's Avatar
    Join Date
    18 May 2007
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,352
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hazy? Have you inspected the lens elements for mould/fungus etc.?
    Nikon FX

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    15 Jul 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    457
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    hazy @ 2.8? might need to clarify that one - that would cause me concern - the 80-200 2.8 af ed is a good lens and a good alternate if you cannot afford the 70-200 2.8.

    cost wise, ebay is a good place to look, but really I have seen some go on there for silly prices. personally I would not pay more than 600 for a good copy.

    Have a look at ECS in sydney, they always have a good second hand stock list and they currently have one on there for 725, so that should give you a starting point

    http://www.cameras.net.au/secondhand.php
    Some Nikon stuff... gerrys photo journey
    https://plus.google.com/+GerardBlacklock
    No amount of processing will fix bad composition - trust me i have tried.

  5. #5
    Ausphotography Veteran MattNQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    23 Dec 2010
    Location
    Townsville
    Posts
    2,264
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I picked up the exact same model for $500 off Evilbay. Very good condition.
    Keep in mind Eglobal (site sponsor) has new ones for $879. (two ring design as opposed to the push-pull)

    It should be quite sharp & crystal clear at f2.8, not hazy. Sample of this lens at f2.8 below
    http://www.ausphotography.net.au/for...-Stone-Maidens

    My thoughts would be to pass on it if you can't get good results at f2.8. It would be like having a Ferrari locked in second gear.
    Last edited by MattNQ; 06-09-2012 at 1:21pm.
    Matt
    CC always appreciated

    My Gallery
    Even More Pics


  6. #6
    A royal pain in the bum! arthurking83's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Jun 2006
    Location
    the worst house, in the best street
    Posts
    7,701
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    They're a tank of a lens.

    Post an image to show this haze rendering too.

    ie. is it focus issues, or is it internal dust?

    All of the 80-200 AF/AF-D models that I know of needed a front protection filter to complete a seal to the lens's internals.
    These lenses act like a vacuum device .. sucking all the dust out of a room and into it's internals!
    (great for a dust free environment, but obviously not so for the lens!!)

    The latest, 2 ring versions can work well enough.
    I'm pretty sure this model has the annoying trait where the filter threads rotate on focusing. Important if you use polarisers.

    Given the amount of money they cost tho(new or second hand), I'd recommend a much cheaper Tamron 70-200/2.8 as an alternative.
    Better IQ, better focusing ability(with a caveat tho) and comes supplied with a lens hood as standard(never underestimate the need for a lens hood).
    Nikon D800E, D300, D70s
    {Nikon} -> 50/1.2 : 500/8(CPU'd) : 105/2.8VR Micro : 180/2.8ais : 105mm f/1.8ais : 24mm/2ais
    {Sigma}; ->10-20/4-5.6 : 50/1.4 : 12-24/4.5-5.6II : 150-600mm|S
    {Tamron}; -> 17-50/2.8 : 28-75/2.8 : 70-200/2.8 : 300/2.8 SP MF : 24-70/2.8VC


  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    13 Mar 2012
    Location
    Flinders View
    Posts
    435
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    One other thing to consider, will your shooting style make use of this lens? Are you buying it because your mate has it for sale, or will you actually shoot with it?
    Cheers,
    Ian

    All the 7's: D700, D7000, D70

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    18 Nov 2008
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    271
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    they do lose contrast wide open. you definitely need a hood - a screw-on round one would do. i used the 85mm F1.4D one, which worked ok on the wide end but probably didn't do much at 200mm. you will need to account for the loss of contrast in post processing. also, the focusing elements are HEAVY. wimpy AF bodies need not apply.
    Thanks,
    Nam

  9. #9
    Sir Rattus79 - The Proclaimant
    Join Date
    15 Jul 2010
    Location
    Forest Lake
    Posts
    1,948
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Have a look at the Tamron 70-200 2.8 and the Sigma version too, as these are new, and will also help to provide a base for your lower offering price. (Don't discount them as an option too, both are supreme pieces of glass)
    Greg Bartle,
    I have a Pentax and I'm not afraid to use it.
    Pentax K5
    Sigma 10-20 | Tamron 17-50 F:2.8 | Sigma 50 F:1.4 | Sigma 70-200 F:2.8 Plus a bunch of Ye Olde lenses


    Would you like to see more?
    http://flickr.com/photosbygreg

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    13 Mar 2012
    Location
    Flinders View
    Posts
    435
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I love my Siggy 70-200 2.8. It's a lovely sharp lens all over, and on a FX body is a very useful focal length.

  11. #11
    Ausphotography Veteran MattNQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    23 Dec 2010
    Location
    Townsville
    Posts
    2,264
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by N*A*M View Post
    wimpy AF bodies need not apply.
    Shhh, my D3000 will be offended. I don't even have an autofocus to blame when I get it wrong.

  12. #12
    Member
    Threadstarter
    scpleta's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Feb 2009
    Location
    Bendigo
    Posts
    252
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    thanks guys for all the feedback. i'll get back and post pictures taken at f/2.8 and f/5.6 so you can see. cheers all!

  13. #13
    Member
    Threadstarter
    scpleta's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Feb 2009
    Location
    Bendigo
    Posts
    252
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hello guys! I managed to thoroughly clean the lens and removed the UV filter. Guess what? The haze was significantly reduced.

    Now for my next question, would you pay this lens for $250?

    Cheers once more!

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    15 Jul 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    457
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by scpleta View Post
    Hello guys! I managed to thoroughly clean the lens and removed the UV filter. Guess what? The haze was significantly reduced.

    Now for my next question, would you pay this lens for $250?

    Cheers once more!
    have a good look thru the lens and make sure there is no fungus, when you say the haze was significantly reduced, does that mean there is no haze now? even better post a picture of said haze

    250, imo if its in good condition thats not a bad deal at all, if its got some kinda problem like fungus or something else then i would still steer clear.

  15. #15
    A royal pain in the bum! arthurking83's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Jun 2006
    Location
    the worst house, in the best street
    Posts
    7,701
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by scpleta View Post
    Hello guys! I managed to thoroughly clean the lens and removed the UV filter. Guess what? The haze was significantly reduced. ....
    UV filter not originally mentioned, so that makes perfect sense.
    What brand?
    I'd normally highly recommend to dump it, but in the case of this lens, the UV filter is not only handy, but required to seal the front of the lens from the elements.
    So if the brand of filter is noname cheapo, look to get a decent quality filter(Nikon/Hoya/B+W ... or whatever)

    ..... Now for my next question, would you pay this lens for $250?

    .....
    DEFNINITELY!(as Gerry said only if in OK nik!).
    Can you post any pics?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •