NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: richardHaw on July 17, 2018, 06:11:40
-
Hello. I am starting this thread to get some discussion going with these 3 lenses. I hope you can chip in with your recollection of these lenses.
The mailman just delivered the 1st version to me yesterday and now I can make some user impressions of the 3 earlier lenses.
- v1: slow AF, reasonably sharp. slight tendency to front focus at minimum distance at 200mm (mine at least), push-pull, extends when focusing.
- v2: faster AF, the sharpest I had, known to have a tendency to back focus at minimum distance at 200mm, push-pull, IF.
- 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.
the backfocusing issue seem to have stem from the lens being serviced the wrong way. In my experience with zooms I find that you will have to calibrate the focus and sharpness for both ends of the zoom range and the middle one as well if you care. here's the funny thing, I have tested v3 lenses that were sold NEW and they also show the tendency to backfocus ::) this wasn't apparent with film camera but it shows with digital bodies. I remember how the internet was ablaze (at least at DPreview) about this issue during the days of the D300. I had v3 for some time and I used it with my D700, it did exhibit this problem so when I was shooting events I would focus on the client's nose just to get her eye in-focus :o :o :o If I focused on the eye then the ear would be focused. Pity it was such a capable lens.
given the experience of people here in this group, I am sure we can make a nice map of how these 3 performs.
-
To the best of my knowledge, the three AF 80-200/2.8 ED versions are the same optically. Of course there is the possibility that the optics were refined slightly along the say, and coatings may have improved also, but they are at least broadly the same. So any sharpness differences should be due to sample variation and the accuracy of focusing.
All focus by extension (the front group moves forward when focusing closer). In V2 and V3 the front barrel is longer so the extension occurs within the barrel, giving the impression of an internally focusing lens. It's only when you get to the AF-S 80-200 that you get a completely new optical system with true IF.
Could the back-focus be due to focus shift on stopping down?
-
I have the push pull 'IF' version, no tripod foot.
I bought it soon after my D1 back 5th March 2006. I use it for motorsport, football, rugby, horse trials and anything else that calls for a medium tele zoom, very robust lens, been out in all weathers the D1, D200's, D300S and now my D3.
Sharp enough for me, autofocus spot on, 2016 used it at Rockingham Mini Challenge races; car travelling about 130MPH, @ 200mm, panning from the pit wall gave me this image hand held, no monopod.
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/845/42571788395_d7fc78e7a1_o.jpg)
This is a 100% crop. D3, 1/400 Second @ f/9.0, ISO-250
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1829/43476788721_b6ac6d6669_o.jpg)
-
To the best of my knowledge, the three AF 80-200/2.8 ED versions are the same optically. Of course there is the possibility that the optics were refined slightly along the say, and coatings may have improved also, but they are at least broadly the same. So any sharpness differences should be due to sample variation and the accuracy of focusing.
All focus by extension (the front group moves forward when focusing closer). In V2 and V3 the front barrel is longer so the extension occurs within the barrel, giving the impression of an internally focusing lens. It's only when you get to the AF-S 80-200 that you get a completely new optical system with true IF.
Could the back-focus be due to focus shift on stopping down?
I have ruled-out the focusing inaccuracy factor. it really is the optics :o :o :o
i suspect it's your other point which is sample variation. my pet theory is repairmen putting the elements cells back without calibrating them ::)
-
I have the push pull 'IF' version, no tripod foot.
I bought it soon after my D1 back 5th March 2006. I use it for motorsport, football, rugby, horse trials and anything else that calls for a medium tele zoom, very robust lens, been out in all weathers the D1, D200's, D300S and now my D3.
Sharp enough for me, autofocus spot on, 2016 used it at Rockingham Mini Challenge races; car travelling about 130MPH, @ 200mm, panning from the pit wall gave me this image hand held, no monopod.
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/845/42571788395_d7fc78e7a1_o.jpg)
This is a 100% crop. D3, 1/400 Second @ f/9.0, ISO-250
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1829/43476788721_b6ac6d6669_o.jpg)
I found this version to be the sharpest :o :o :o at least in my experience...
I remember 3rd party manufacturers making tripod feet for these...I wonder how much these are selling for now ::)
-
I remember 3rd party manufacturers making tripod feet for these...I wonder how much these are selling for now ::)
I don't see where the foot could be attached/clamped to the lens body. If I could find a picture of one I would make one. It's a very heavy lens to be hanging so far off the lens mount, not just the weigh but leverage too.
-
Have taken it out of the lens cupboard and had a good look. The only place I can see is around the front of the lens, there is a 20mm margin which a well fitting clamp could be used but then it means that the entire weight of the camera (D3) is hanging on the front of the lens, plus any handling forces in holding the assembly in adverse conditions scrambling up steep ground or across muddy fields etc.
The only thing I can see being practical and strong is to clamp around the front of the lens, then have a long nodal bar attached to the camera tripod mount and the front clamp. Strong but messy if lens changing is called for...
And yes, the front element does move during focus, significantly but it's inside the body of the lens and the filter/lens hood mount does not turn or move.
My lens has what looks like a bayonet mount for a lens hood and the 72mm filter threads.
I can't find a lens number anywhere. Any suggestions where to look?
-
by the way, if i am not mistaken there is an advisory in the user manual that at 200mm and shot at 1.5m the backfocus problem will show itself on some digital cameras like the D90 and D300 :o :o :o
-
https://www.photoproshop.com/Lens-Gear/Lens-Tripod-Collars/Lens-Collar-Nikon-80-200-AF-D.html
Seapy, this is the link :o :o :o I found it!
-
Seapy, this is the link :o :o :o I found it!
Thanks Richard, much appreciated. Might well make one of those... Mmmmm. That chunk of Aluminium is coming in handy again.
-
Thanks Richard, much appreciated. Might well make one of those... Mmmmm. That chunk of Aluminium is coming in handy again.
there has to be a better design that this :o :o :o
i believe that this can be improved ::)
-
https://page.auctions.yahoo.co.jp/jp/auction/j500164807
a cheap chinese one :o :o :o
-
https://page.auctions.yahoo.co.jp/jp/auction/j500164807
a cheap chinese one :o :o :o
The picture says AF-S, and all the text I am able to read also says AF-S
-
The picture says AF-S, and all the text I am able to read also says AF-S
My lens is not AFS...
That bracket was what I envisaged as being unsuitable design because it can only clamp at the front of my lens due to the large (long) zoom ring.
The Kirk is as good as it's going to get for my lens and it's well within my scope to make. Although after twelve years without one I'm not really panicking about it...
-
The picture says AF-S, and all the text I am able to read also says AF-S
Asle, you are right. This is for the AF-S version.
-
my bad, it is for the AFS version :o :o :o
-
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
-
True, f/4 just won't do specially back in the days when ISO800 was the highest i would go :o :o :o
do you think the softness you saw was caused by the backfocusing problem?
the 180/2.8D is a great lens! go get it.
-
....
- 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.
-
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