AF 80-200mm f/2.8D ED (Two Touch) Reputation...

[David H. Hartman]

OK, so you already have the lens and just wanted a 2nd opinion about its "special" performance?

I read in the past that the AF 80-200/2.8D ED (two touch) had poor image sharpness at close range. When testing on my new D850 I took one outstandingly sharp photo (an AF error in my favor) and then a bunch of improperly focused photos. If the lens could talk what it was saying was I can't deliver great images but not for you. 

If I needed an 80-200/2.8 for my F3 I'd want to keep this lens. Since I can't envision ever shooting anything but ISO 400 b&w with my F3 and wouldn't use such a heavy lens with the F3, well I don't need the AF 80-200/2.8D ED anymore.

I wanted a second opinion that the problem with the lens is an AF problem not its ability to form a great image. The problem I'm seeing on my D850 didn't show up with my F4s or F5 as outline in Richard's articles.

Dave

[David H. Hartman]

Richard,

I just read the paragraph from your article on the AF 80-200/2.8D ED N (late single touch). Maybe I'm slow but I'm not sure where the change comes in cameras that don't focus properly with some of these lenses at 7m and down. If I had my D300s handy I'd check but I'm not at the location so I can't grab it.

Is the D300s a Yah or a Nay for proper AF at 7m and closer?

Thanks!

Dave

Is the problem found with cameras that have 3D Matrix Metering systems? Any chance using center-weighted meter cures this AF malady? Wishful thinking?  

I'm trying to remember what I once knew and what didn't matter much for a time.

[arthurking83]

I had this with my D300 back in the day.
Had it for a good year(minimum), and at the time was happy enough, but just something not 100% right.
Overall IQ, colour, bokeh, etc ... was superlative! In that respect one of my favourite lenses.
But at 200mm and f/4 or less, not the sharpest lens, made worse with misfocus issues.
Test the then new Tamron 70-200/2.8(non VC, very first edition) .. so much better sharpness, and 99.9% as good in other measures of IQ by comparison.
More importantly it allowed easier refocus as required, where the 80-200 required the A-M ring to be moved first, then focus adjusted as needed. Too clunky, and then from reading of it, this A-M focus locking ring was all too fragile to be using with regularity.
Unsealed front lens element meant dust inside lens within a day of using it!
I hate UV/protective filters, but this lens required it to make it sealed in some sense.

Loved the lens, hated it's vices ... Tamron had a better alternative at the time.
BUT! ... if you ever needed a hammer on a spur of the moment situation .. the 80-200 AF-D lens would provide for 'ya!

If you really want a lens of this focal range, I'd strongly argue that the Tamron is better most of the time.
If you want smoother bokeh than the already smooth Tamron can provide and for a decent price range .. then the 80-200 AF-D could be better, considering it'd also make a good emergency carpenters' tool too.

[Peter]

I had a decent one but didn't like the front heavy feel.. I would love a VR but i see so many for parts and repair on Ebay with Failed motors and stuck zooms and they are God awful expensive!!
I just stayed with my 180mm f2.8 ED AF-D.

[longzoom]

Sorry.

[David H. Hartman]

I'm convinced I don't want the weight of an 80-200/2.8 lens and I'm not happy with an AF-D 80-150/2.8 Lens so how do I liquidate it? I can't sell it to anyone here unless they know its vices. I don't think anyone here would want it unless they could complete the adjustment needed by this lens themself.

Has anyone here had one of these lenses serviced by Nikon? I suspect having Nikon adjust the lens might cost about what I can sell it for. I guess I should ask Nikon? They probably won't give a quote by phone.

Does anyone have experience selling to KEH.com?

Does anyone here want to buy a doorstop? 

Dave

[Erik Lund]

I'm convinced I don't want the weight of an 80-200/2.8 lens and I'm not happy with an AF-D 80-150/2.8 Lens so how do I liquidate it? .....

AF-D 80-150/2.8 - Must be a typo?

[Airy]

What is the performance of the AF 80-200mm f/2.8D ED (Two Touch) particularly at 200mm, large apertures and near focus distance? Is there a problem? Is there any one here with personal experience?

Dave Hartman

I have the (optically identical) one-touch version and can confirm that, at long FLs (135mm and up) and close focal range, it behaves like a "portrait lens" (as others characterized before), to put it nicely.

Otherwise it is built like a tank, and if I had to get pictures from a "dangerous" environment, I'd take it along with me, no doubt. For the time being, it gathers dust, a pity for a generally good zoom lens.

[ianwatson]

Does anyone have experience selling to KEH.com?

Yes, it was a smooth and efficient experience from initial inquiry all the way to receiving payment. You live in the US and so they will pay for shipping the lens to them for inspection and final quote, and for shipping it back if you decline.

Just keep in mind that the conservative ratings that make for pleasant surprises when buying from them will be applied to your lens. Fair enough.

KEH also services items, so you could ask them if they would perform the adjustment that Richard described. I have not tried this side of their business but am keeping it in mind for the future.

[David H. Hartman]

AF-D 80-150/2.8 - Must be a typo?

No this is an evaluation of the useful range of the lens at close distance. At 2 meters and f/2.8 I get consistently good auto focus up to 150mm but by 185mm the focus is consistently soft. As far as I can tell it's not inconsistent at 185mm it is consistently in accurate. The focus error at 185mm can probably be covered by stopping down to f/5.6 or f/8.0. By 200mm and 2 meters the focus is so far off the mark that auto focus is not useful. To make use of this lens above 150mm and 2 meters I'd need to use manual focus and a camera with a split image viewfinder, e.g. an F3 with an A screen.

I’ve used AF fine focus and a setting of -7 is pretty good up to 150mm. I think I did the AF fine tune testing at 135mm and about 2.5 to 3 meters. The full range of AF fine focus settings did not give useful auto focus at 200mm and close distance. This lens must suffer with the AF adjustment problems Richard outlines in his lens evaluation and repair blog.

Dave

I have the (optically identical) one-touch version and can confirm that, at long FLs (135mm and up) and close focal range, it behaves like a "portrait lens" (as others characterized before), to put it nicely.

I'm sorry to hear this. It sounds like your lens is further out of adjustment than mine is.

Dave

[longzoom]

Dave, it is very interesting, how are you calculating who is deserved to be answered by you, and who is not? Would you be so kind to explain the tendency? What is a measurable point?

[David H. Hartman]

Dave, it is very interesting, how are you calculating who is deserved to be answered by you, and who is not? Would you be so kind to explain the tendency? What is a measurable point?

I don't know, I'm responding to what I notice. Did I ignore one of your replies?

Dave

I endever to read every reply to the topics I start. I have read this complete topic. Maybe I need to read it again. I'll do this later this afternoon.

[Erik Lund]

No this is an evaluation of the useful range of the lens at close distance. At 2 meters and f/2.8 I get consistently good auto focus up to 150mm but by 185mm the focus is consistently soft. As far as I can tell it's not inconsistent at 185mm it is consistently in accurate. The focus error at 185mm can probably be covered by stopping down to f/5.6 or f/8.0. By 200mm and 2 meters the focus is so far off the mark that auto focus is not useful. To make use of this lens above 150mm and 2 meters I'd need to use manual focus and a camera with a split image viewfinder, e.g. an F3 with an A screen.

I’ve used AF fine focus and a setting of -7 is pretty good up to 150mm. I think I did the AF fine tune testing at 135mm and about 2.5 to 3 meters. The full range of AF fine focus settings did not give useful auto focus at 200mm and close distance. This lens must suffer with the AF adjustment problems Richard outlines in his lens evaluation and repair blog.

Dave

OK, that makes a little more sense now, I guess.
And it's the two touch version.

[David H. Hartman]

OK, that makes a little more sense now, I guess.
And it's the two touch version.

Yes my lens is the two touch version with tripod collar.

Dave

[Jack Dahlgren]

Put it up on eBay with some sample photos, a link to Richard’s article and a note that it will require AF adjustment, or can be used in manual mode.

If you are not going to use it, get rid of it.