Nikon 80-200mm f/4 AI-s.

Kodachrome Skies

A
Kodachrome Skies

  • 1
  • 0
  • 90
The Dive

A
The Dive

  • 4
  • 2
  • 121
Edinburgh nights

Edinburgh nights

  • 1
  • 6
  • 180

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
178,728
Messages
2,458,787
Members
94,629
Latest member
swededreams
Recent bookmarks
0

jphendren

Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2009
Messages
130
Location
North Las Ve
Shooter
35mm
My current long lens is a Nikon 50-135mm f/3.5 AI-s, which I love. I however would like to own an 80-200mm, and have found a mint in the original box with manual 80-200mm f/4 AI-s. I am considering buying this lens. I will be using the lens for tripod mounted landscapes. Anybody here own this lens? I found a thread on another forum where some of participants mentioned that this lens is too heavy to mount on a tripod due to the lack of a tripod collar. Its claimed weight is around 28 oz. I currently have a Canon 70-200mm f/4 USM and it weighs around 25 oz., and I don't find that it needs a tripod collar.

What do you think of this lens? Is it better than the f/4.5 AI lens?

I have owned the push-pull D, and the AF-s 80-200mm f/2.8's, and those were too heavy for my style of photography. I found that I left them in the car, rather then used them. So the f/4 seems to be the ticket.

Whatever your thoughts are on this lens, feel free to share.

Jared
 

rosey

Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2006
Messages
139
Location
Toledo, Ohio
Shooter
35mm
I have one. It's a very, very good lens on my FA, FE2, FG, N200 and FM. Sharp, easy to handle. 'Nuf said.
 

df cardwell

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
3,357
Location
Dearborn,Mic
Shooter
Multi Format
My 80-200/4.5 is a wonderful lens, so is the f/4.

Sure is funny how, on an internet forum, experts tell us how the lenses we used to make great pictures (before the internet)
aren't any good. Too heavy for a tripod ? Good thing these folks weren't around back in the day.

Enjoy !
 

Rol_Lei Nut

Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,108
Location
Hamburg
Shooter
Multi Format
I have the older 80-200 f/4.5 and the only problem I have using it on a tripod is that the zooming mechanism is very loose (apparently very common or even normal with that model), which means that the zoom position won't stay in place if the lens is pointed up or down at a sharp(ish) angle.
 
OP
OP

jphendren

Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2009
Messages
130
Location
North Las Ve
Shooter
35mm
"I have the older 80-200 f/4.5 and the only problem I have using it on a tripod is that the zooming mechanism is very loose (apparently very common or even normal with that model)"

My 50-135mm also exhibits this, I guess that "zoom creep" is the nature of the beast with push-pull zooms.

Jared
 

macrorie

Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2005
Messages
124
Location
Maine, USA
Shooter
Multi Format
I have both 50-135mm f3.5 and 80-200 f4 lenses, and I like both of them. I bought the 80-200 from a professional photographer who tried to buy it back from me afterward - he had a lot of respect for the lens, and I have had very good luck with it. The only downside to it in my opinion is that it takes 62mm filters, if the rest of your lenses are 52mm filter fits (but then, your 50-135 is also 62mm). Also, if you use the recommended HN-23 hood on it it makes a really long lens/hood combination that complicates housing it in a bag.

I used it on monopods and tripods without any problems, but I was also mounting it on heavy, professional bodies like an F2 and F3: I would think twice about putting it on one of the small and light Nikon bodies like an FA or FG
 
OP
OP

jphendren

Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2009
Messages
130
Location
North Las Ve
Shooter
35mm
"The only downside to it in my opinion is that it takes 62mm filters"

Thankfully I already own all of the 62mm B+W filters that I need due to the 50-135mm.

I have read that the front of the lens turns when focused on this lens, is this true? That is one thing about the 50-135mm that I love. I prefer to not have to re-adjust my circular polarizer after focusing the lens. I will be using the lens on a Nikon F6, as well as an F5. I don't think that this lens will be too heavy for these cameras, but I am not sure, as I've never handled this lens. I have considered the new Nikon 70-200mm AF-S VR II lens, but that lens is double the weight, cost 10X as much, and has no DOF marks on it. I really hate carrying heavy camera packs. I use to own the 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-s, and left it in the truck more than using it, due to its large size and weight. So I think that the 80-200mm f/4 could be the ticket.

Jared
 

macrorie

Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2005
Messages
124
Location
Maine, USA
Shooter
Multi Format
The front of the 80-200 f4 does rotate when focusing. I also like the non-rotating feature of the 50-135mm zoom, which BTW is a great lens on a DSLR. You would not have any problem with the 80-200mm f4 stressing the lens mount on a F5 or F6. However, it will put a certain amount of strain on any tripod head, quick release setup, etc. I have never had any problems with it when using pretty mainstream, "average" equipment (i.e.okay with medium strength ballheads, etc). One other slight drawback with the 80-200m f4 is that is exhibits some visible vignetting wide open at 200, but that is true of many telephotos. I do not have any experience with the 80-200mm f4.5, but I have the impression it is not easy to find one without a really significant zoom creep.
 
OP
OP

jphendren

Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2009
Messages
130
Location
North Las Ve
Shooter
35mm
"I do not have any experience with the 80-200mm f4.5, but I have the impression it is not easy to find one without a really significant zoom creep."

My 50-135mm exhibits zoom creep; sometimes it is difficult to use on a tripod at an angle. How is zoom creep on the 80-200mm f/4? I'd imagine that since it is the same design, that it is probably effected.

Jared
 

macrorie

Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2005
Messages
124
Location
Maine, USA
Shooter
Multi Format
My 80-200 f/4 does not have a particularly loose zoom ring, but I have seen plenty for sale on keh that were listed with that problem. I think it just varies from lens to lens. It is possible to have them serviced so the zoom is more secure for a while. I seem to remember some do it yourself remedies for improving zoom creep on 75-150 E lenses, which are also notorious for this problem. Try a web search on zoom loose and 75-150mm and you will probably find some useful advice, since that was such a popular lens. Even if you had the lens serviced for the problem, the outlay in dollars would be a lot less than a new lens. If the 80-200mm you are considering is mint in the box, it should not have zoom creep.
 
OP
OP

jphendren

Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2009
Messages
130
Location
North Las Ve
Shooter
35mm
I have a couple more questions regarding this lens.

Was this lens considered a pro lens when it was current?

Ken Rockwell mentioned on his page for this lens that it listed for over $900 at B&H; does anybody know if this is true?

Would you say that the optical quality of this lens is equal to the newer ED f/2.8 80-200 lenses?

Jared
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab
Top Bottom