80-200mm for Nikon — which one?

[fdonadio]

Hello, all!


I miss a long-ish zoom for my Nikons: an FM-2 and an F-3.

Back in the 90's, I had a Nikkor 80-200mm f/4 AI-s and I remember it being a great lens. It was a push/pull zoom with focusing on the same "big ring". That particular specimen didn't have the "zoom creep" problem and had just the right amount of resistance. It was a joy to use.

I am considering getting one again, but I keep thinking I should get the AF Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8 ED instead. It's more expensive, heavier and bigger, uses huge filters and the autofocus is not necessary for me. This particular model doesn't have a tripod collar... but I shoot mostly handheld.

So, I ask:

1. Is the one stop difference really significant?

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

3. The focusing and zooming mechanism feels the same?

I guess that's it. Any remarks about both lenses is appreciated.


Cheers,
Flavio

 

[PGillin]

I haven't shot the f/4 version, but the 2.8 is a good performer on my F3. I find it a little heavy on just the F3 and well balanced with the motor drive attached. The 77mm filter is ok if you also have other lenses that use it, like a 20-35, 24-70, etc.
The 2.8 is build incredibly well, the only disadvantage is size and weight.
One other thing you may consider is that if you'll be using a teleconverter that the extra speed of the 2.8 makes a difference for viewfinder brightness and shutter speed.

 

[Leigh B]

Hi FLavio,

I have the 80-200 2.8 without the tripod collar. It's an excellent lens, but large and heavy.

I also have the 70-180. It's much smaller, built like a tank, and has macro capability for close work.
I really like it, and use it in preference to the 80-200 except when I really need the f/2.8 speed.

The 70-180 is a relatively rare lens, with fewer than 16,000 made. It might be hard to find.
I had no problem locating several used ones when I was looking for it several months ago.

Here's Ken Rockwell's page on the 70-180. It's his standard lens for all the shots in his reviews:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70180.htm

- Leigh

 

[RichardJack]

Since your shooting with manual focus stick with one of the 80-200 ED f2.8 AIS versions. I like the version with the tripod collar.

 

[fdonadio]

Since your shooting with manual focus stick with one of the 80-200 ED f2.8 AIS versions. I like the version with the tripod collar.

The AIS is kinda hard to find and expensive. I checked the big auction site and there are a lot of AF ones for $250-300, which looks like a bargain to me.

My only worry is that the focus rings on my Nikkor AF lenses (35-105mm f3.5-4.5 AF-D and 50mm f1.8 D) are strange. They are too narrow and soft (turn too easily, lightly) and feel like creaking when turned. I like the "heavier but smoother" feel of the AI-s lenses.

 

[fdonadio]

Thanks everyone for the input so far. I am still open to opinions...

 

[Chan Tran]

If f/4 is OK for you get the old AI f/4 lens otherwise see if you can find the f/2.8 AIS. I think it's very rare. I wouldn't want to use any AF lenses on the FM or F3 unless I have to.

 

[Leigh B]

I wouldn't want to use any AF lenses on the FM or F3 unless I have to.

Why not?

The AF D lenses work fine on my F3/HP and F3T/HP.
They have proper ADR scales just like the AIS lenses.

- Leigh

 

[macfred]

I have a Zoom-Nikkor-C Auto 80-200/4,5 'non-ai' for my F2 Photomic - it's a well made lens -
great sharpness, no visible distortion (for my old eyes), very pleasent out-of-focus backgrounds, takes 52mm filters, relatively light, ...
I paid about 60 ,- EURO for it. One cannot get a better tele-zoom lens for the price.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I have a Zoom-Nikkor-C Auto 80-200/4,5 'non-ai' for my F2 Photomic - it's a well made lens -
great sharpness, no visible distortion (for my old eyes), very pleasent out-of-focus backgrounds, takes 52mm filters, relatively light, ...
I paid about 60 ,- EURO for it. One cannot get a better tele-zoom lens for the price.

+1 I agree and liked it more that the newer f4 version. The only problem they seem to have is the zoom ring sliding down when you take a shot with the lens pointed at to groun. I put some friction tape on my barrel and problem cured.

 

[macfred]

The only problem they seem to have is the zoom ring sliding down when you take a shot with the lens pointed at to groun. I put some friction tape on my barrel and problem cured.

Same problem here - fixed alike !

 

[Michael Guzzi]

+1 I agree and liked it more that the newer f4 version. The only problem they seem to have is the zoom ring sliding down when you take a shot with the lens pointed at to groun. I put some friction tape on my barrel and problem cured.

Same here. I got two versions actually, one Zoom-Nikkor-C Auto and a Zoom-Nikkor 4.5N, Ai mount. I like them both very much. Didn't bother to "fix" the loose zoom on the Ai, I actually like it that way...

 

[ac12]

It all depends.

1 - Can you handle the extra weight of an f/2.8 lens?

• As I get older, I am finding that the weight I could easily handle when in college is becoming more difficult to handle.
• To that extent, I got the even older 80-200/f4.5 to use during the day, when I don't need the extra speed of a f/2.8 lens on my film cameras.
  
• I passed up a nice used 80-200/f2.8 AF to save my $$$$ for the smaller and lighter 70-200/f4 AFS VR. Though like all collectors/accumulators, I wish I had bought the 80-200/f2.8 AF.
  
• In fact I have an Olympus OM kit for when the F2/F3 kit become too heavy to haul around.

2 - What is the lighting condition that you shoot in?

• If during the day, the lighter f/4.5 or f/4 80-200 lenses would work fine.
• If in dim light, then you want the faster f/2.8 lens.

3 - 1-ring vs. 2-ring lens.

• For a manual focus camera, I prefer a 1-ring zoom. Then I can both zoom and focus without moving my support hand. And I want the push/pull zoom to be easy and light to move. I have used, and DO NOT LIKE the 2-ring manual focus zooms, as it is too slow and a PiA to be jumping back and forth between the zoom and focus rings.
  
• For an auto-focus camera, I prefer a 2-ring zoom, since 99+% of my manipulation will be the zoom, not the focus. I do not think they even make a 1-ring AF zoom.

 

[ac12]

+1 I agree and liked it more that the newer f4 version. The only problem they seem to have is the zoom ring sliding down when you take a shot with the lens pointed at to groun. I put some friction tape on my barrel and problem cured.

Different strokes for different folks.
I LIKE a loose push/pull zoom, as it makes it much easier to follow zoom, especially when shooting fast moving action, like sports or kids.
I do NOT like a zoom so tight that I am shoving the camera into my face, when pulling the zoom ring in. Nor having to hold the camera back, when pushing the zoom ring out.
I only wish I could get some of my other zooms loosened up. But the tech told me that the cost to disassemble, clean, lube and reassemble would be EXPENSIVE for an old lens. The big cost was the recollimation of the optics. Bummed me out, but I did appreciate his honesty and frank opinion.

 

[fdonadio]

1 - Can you handle the extra weight of an f/2.8 lens?

I still can. At 39, I can hike with my Sinar F 4x5, a bunch of holders, tripod and whatever else you can think in a backpack.

I really don't care about carrying the weight. In fact, heavier gear makes me steadier when shooting handheld.

2 - What is the lighting condition that you shoot in?

Mostly daylight, especially with longer lenses like the one we're talking about.

3 - 1-ring vs. 2-ring lens.

Definitely 1-ring! Although some of the autofocus look like they are 1-ring.

I guess the f/4 will do for me. Maybe I am just too worried about bragging rights with my digisnapping friends.

Thanks, ac12!

 

[fdonadio]

Oh, about the softness/resistance of the focusing/zoom ring: I have this nervous tension problem that makes it almost impossible to handle things too lightly.

I mean, I like to have some small resistance to play with. Nothing absurd like ac12 said (having the camera hit your face when zooming out) — that's way too much. But I hate when I barely touch something and it moves!

 

[fdonadio]

Thanks again everyone...

 

[ac12]

For the zoom touch, you really need to hold the lens in your hand.
It is almost impossible to convey how much friction the zoom has in words, except for the loose rings like what I like.
What I say, will be interpreted differently by most people, because there is no way to easily measure the friction/force needed to zoom the lens.

 

[fdonadio]

For the zoom touch, you really need to hold the lens in your hand.
It is almost impossible to convey how much friction the zoom has in words, except for the loose rings like what I like.
What I say, will be interpreted differently by most people, because there is no way to easily measure the friction/force needed to zoom the lens.

For sure. Maybe someone that used both lenses could talk about the difference (or similarity). And, even then, there are variations...

I have just watched a video on YouTube that makes me think the 80-200mm f/2.8 AF ED is very similar to the AI-s I had. It's a push/pull with manual focus on the same wide ring — exactly what I want.

Ken Rockwell says on his review that the AF is slow, but I don't care, as I don't even have an AF body! He also says the current 80-200mm f/2.8 uses the same optical design, so it should be good enough.

Now, my problem is: do I get the f/4 AI-s for $80? Or the f/2.8 AF for $260?

 

[ac12]

Since you can handle the weight, I would go for the faster f/2.8 lens. Because a fast lens is always nice to have. There have been a few times where I wish I had a faster lens. And with a film camera, you cannot just press the buttons and raise the ISO level, as you can with a digital camera. And you cannot get film as fast as how high the ISO on a digital SLR can go.

I shot my niece's wedding with a 70-210/f4 zoom, and my DSLR, but only had a max ISO of 1600. I was down at 1/60 sec zoomed out to 210mm. That is 2 stops slower that the standard guideline for minimum speed for a lens, which in this case would be 1/250 sec. A f/2.8 lens would have gotten me up to a more comfortable 1/125 sec.

 

[fdonadio]

Since you can handle the weight, I would go for the faster f/2.8 lens. Because a fast lens is always nice to have. There have been a few times where I wish I had a faster lens. And with a film camera, you cannot just press the buttons and raise the ISO level, as you can with a digital camera. And you cannot get film as fast as how high the ISO on a digital SLR can go.

Thanks, ac12. I think that's what I am going to do. When my back starts to complain about the weight, I can buy the f/4 for $80.

 

[ac12]

Heck for $80, I would get the f/4 or f/4.5 lens now, or soon, and just put it away for when you need it

 

[choiliefan]

I have an 80-200 2.8 ED AF-D no tripod collar push pull Nikkor which is phenomenal whether used in af or manual focus. Lately I've been carrying a much lighter-weight early AF Nikkor 70-210 4-5.6 which rivals the sharpness of any tele/zoom lens I've ever used. Other than slowness at the long end the only downside is the tiny grip area on the focus ring. Hope this helps.

 

[fdonadio]

Thanks, @choiliefan! I've been reading great reviews of the 80-200. I'm pretty much convinced it's the way to go and I've found one right here in Brazil for a great price!

 

[fdonadio]

Thanks, @choiliefan! I've been reading great reviews of the 80-200. I'm pretty much convinced it's the way to go and I've found one right here in Brazil for a great price!

 

[John Koehrer]

[QUOTE="ac12, post: 1932528 But the tech told me that the cost to disassemble, clean, lube and reassemble would be EXPENSIVE for an old lens. The big cost was the recollimation of the optics. Bummed me out, but I did appreciate his honesty and frank opinion.[/QUOTE]

There is no collimation needed if the lens is relubricated. None of the optical groups are disturbed.
If, for some reason groups are disassembled, that MAY be another story