80-200mm for Nikon — which one?

fdonadio said:

1. Is the one stop difference really significant?

Click to expand...

I found it to be. In fact, in the 1980's I elected to buy a Tokina 80-200mm f/2.8 instead of the f/4 AI-s. I then switched to 1-ring Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8ED much like the one you are considering. Only after that did I add an 80-200mm f/4 AI-s, because I was planning to switch to a 70-200mm f/2.8 VR which would not work with my Nikon FA.

The extra stop comes in handy in several different ways. The first is when shooting handheld in available light or in "golden hour." Even when I was younger my ability to avoid shake was no better than average. The second is the ability to limit depth of field for candid portraiture. The third is that when you add a teleconverter to an f/2.8 lens, you're more likely to be able use focus aids than with an f/4 lens. Depending on how you plan to use the lens, none of these may be a limitation for you.

fdonadio said:

2. Is there anything else that makes the 2.8 ED a better choice?

Click to expand...

I find that the f/4 lens has greater chromatic aberration than the f/2.8 at longer focal lengths. When using a polarizing filter, the f/2.8 does not rotate with focus; the f/4 does. On the flip side the f/4 focuses more closely than the f/2.8.

fdonadio said:

3. The focusing and zooming mechanism feels the same?

Click to expand...

In my opinion the f/4 has better focus feel.

Thank you very much, @benveniste!

I have decided on the f/2.8 and will buy one as soon as I get the money.

I have 80-200 2.8 ED AF-D with collar and it has awesome colour and sharpness for a zoom. Taken thousands of beautiful looking images in all kinds of light with that beauty! Heavy, yes but what pain for that kind of quality.

My recommendation is not a Nikon. It's a Tamron. The SP 80-200mm f/2.8 LD. A push-pull zoom, it's big and heavy and has a tripod collar. Because of its f/2.8 aperture, it has very pleasing bokeh. Because of its LD glass it is sharp wide open. It is so sharp, in fact, that it rivals the Nikkor 180mm f/2.8 ED. You'll find this lens priced about what you'd pay for a 180/2.8 ED Nikkor also. I have a copy that I bought from KEH in BGN condition. Because of that, I got a great deal on it.

I own several 80-200s and 70-210s and this Tamron is the best of the lot -- by far.

@cooltouch: thanks for the heads up! Still didn't buy it, but going to consider the Tamron.

@Tony Egan: heavy gear makes me steadier so I consider that a bonus!

I use a Nikon Nikkor ED f/3.5 28mm to 200mm AF zoom lens and a Tamron f/3.5 28mm to 300mm AF macro zoom lens and they are both great.

Sirius Glass said:

I use a Nikon 28mm to 200mm AF zoom lens and a Tamron 28mm to 300mm AF zoom lens and they are both great.

Click to expand...

Sorry if I sound like disregarding your advice, but I am skeptical of long-range zoom lenses like 28-200 mm — even the 35-105 mm I have.

People say the zoom lenses have improved a lot in the last two or three decades, but I have a hard time accepting a lens that goes from wide angle to long focal lengths.

But, then again, it's just my opinion, based on pure preconditions...

Then borrow or rent a long range zoom lens and compare it to fixed focal length lenses and you will be surprised at how comparable they are. I was surprised and impressed. Plus the first one that I got I got for free because my girlfriend won it for me. I also use a Nikon Nikkor f/2.8D 20mm to 35mm AF zoom lens.

I have just read my message again and I meant "preconception", not "preconditions".

Sirius Glass said:

Plus the first one that I got I got for free because my girlfriend won it for me.

Click to expand...

You're such a lucky guy.

About the lens, I don't doubt you. Both of us like Hasselblads, so I'm sure you're have really good taste (and eye).

I tend to have the same preconceptions regarding "superzooms" as well, but from what I understand, the latest generation of them are outstanding, optically. But the biggest drawback to them that they can't usually get around is being rather slow optically at the wide end, when a wide prime is almost always f/2.8 at most. And even at the tele end they're often slower than their prime counterparts, or even zooms of the 80-200 or 70-210 variety.

f/3.5 is slow? f/5.6 or f/8 would be slow.

I finally got the 2.8 ED and it arrived in the mail today. I still didn’t have the time to check it thoroughly, but it sure looks good... and heavy!

Took me almost two years to find a good deal, but it’s finally here.

Gonna test it with my F4 this weekend.

Sirius Glass said:

I also use a Nikon Nikkor f/2.8D 20mm to 35mm AF zoom lens.

Click to expand...

This is one of the lenses I’ll be looking to buy in a couple of months. If you happen to have more than one and would be willing to sell it, drop me a message!