the first 3 versions of the 80-200/2.8 AF

[richardHaw]

my bad, it is for the AFS version 

[paul_k]

When I started shooting/using Nikon seriously/(more or less) professionally I got the good old 4.5/80-200 Ai with my F2AS and FE
Of course when shooting under bad light (catwalk, or studio with simple tungsten lamps) the combination of such a slow lens with basically being limited to ISO 400/800 (if in a bold mindset) was a challenge, although I still profit from the experiences/skills I picked op then
While the F801 was my first AF body, I waited relatively long, also for financial reasons, before getting a 'real' fully AF lens, zoom or prime, and just shot with my manual primes on a TC16A AF converter

But the 2.8 max aperture meant such  leap forward in low light shooting possibilities, I got one quite shortly after its introduction.
The max aperture was very nice, as expected, but the slow AF, combined with the as well 'slow' AF of the F801 made me in the following period very swiftly upgrade from the F801 to F801S/F90 and F90X in my quest for faster AF
By that time Nikon had already taken a huge licking from Canon with the EOS 1/1N and their 'AFS' lenses making droves of PJ and sport shooters jump brands
Bit of a shame, as in my experience the F90X with the 2nd version 2.8/80-200 AFD was a pretty fast and capable combination
After I somewhere in 1994 won a prize in the short lived Nikon Agfa Benelux Portrait competition also got a F100, but never grew to like that body (any wannabuy a near mint F100 body still have the box and manual too)

I saw too little significant, for me, improvements in the 3rd two ring version (never even considered the AFS version)
So the 2nd AF-D version stayed my working horse from the AF film shooting mid 90's up into digital 2012, on the film AF bodies, but when I started shooting digital as well on D70S/D1/D1H/D1X/D2 and D3
There may have been optical issues, but I didn't run into them/didn't notice them, perhaps more a result of my sloppy technique then of the faults/merits of the lens

Used it hand held all the time, didn't miss the lens support thing, but there sure were some funny third party two ring/long support bar etc contraptions from eg Kirk or Manfrotto (and entrepreneurial US based DIY tinkerers) on eBay around

But when I upgraded to a D800 in 2012, the lens faults (the one I fell over was the softness when used wide open at 200mm for close ups) became too much, and I almost simultanously with the purchase of the D800 'dropped' the 2.8/80-200 AF-D for a 2.8/70-200 VRII
Excellent new workhorse too, despite the focus breedingmaking it way shorter when used for close up, much faster and sharper, and with a lens 'foot'

But I kind of missed the softer image rendering of the old 80-200 AF D up to a point that I the last few years started making )much to low, so never made a buy) bids for old worn down copies I sometime saw floating by
But some time ago found a very attractive near mint 2.8/180 AFD, got that one instead, and so that part of my GAS has been fed

Still, look back very fondly at the 2.8/80-200 AFD, and still cherish some of the images I shot with it after all those years

[richardHaw]

True, f/4 just won't do specially back in the days when ISO800 was the highest i would go 

do you think the softness you saw was caused by the backfocusing problem?

the 180/2.8D is a great lens! go get it.

[arthurking83]

....

• v3: fastest AF, not as sharp as v2, also has the same tendency to back focus at minimum distance at 200mmm 2-ring and tripod foot, IF.

....  I am sure we can make a nice map of how these 3 performs.

I had the AF-D(two ring) version.
Nice lens, nice colours, great bokeh rendering .. was quickly becoming my favourite lens  .. until!

Up to about 4m focused distance it's backfocus issue was too severe for my preference!
Note tho that my tolerance is quite high too. That is, I'm not a fussy type that delves deeply into pixel level detail.
But there was no way around it, at less than 4m focus distance DOF at 200 mm and F/4 or faster was simply too thin for the amount of backfocus this lens exhibited.

Went into a Nikon service centre to get it looked at(new lens!) and they wanted the camera too(fair enough) but want to charge a fee just to assess the lens(camera) combo.
Wasn't prepared to pay for information that I already know!
So lacking any trust in Nikon(which a few years later was fully realised with my D800E) .. I made the decision to sell it and get  the then new Tamron 70-200/2.8(original version).

The 80-200 AF-D was the only lens I've sold.

Tammy 70-200 wasn't without it's major flaws too(eg. unable to focus in Lv mode) .. it's flaws were never a bother(ie. I never really came across them in actual usage).

To my mind; a nice lens, but seriously flawed.

[the solitaire]

I just sold my push-pull version of the lens. In my experience it did very well with the D300, as well as with the D3. With the D800 my copy did show it's age, so Kristina purchased a 180mm f2,8 AF-D new which is a lot sharper, and, more importantly, a T3,1 lens where the 80-200 f2,8 is closer to T3,5.

At T3,5 (or T3,4 as advertised on some review sites) the 80-200 has never been as useful to me as I would have liked. I really prefer faster lenses. Also, the diaphragm has straight blades, and the optics do not help creating smooth OoF backgrounds when stopping down either.

I held on to the lens for 6 years because I used it for a specific type of paid assignment. Now that I do not do these kinds of assignments for the time being, I sold the lens to put the money to better use elsewhere. I have not effectively replaced the AF lens, but my 300 f2,8 Ai-S gives me more pleasing backgrounds and my 80-200 f4 Ai-S gives me pretty much the same the 80-200 f2,8 AF-D gave me with it's T3,5