Nikon 80-200Mm F2.8Ed Af Zoom Nikkor D

Product Information

The lens was targeted at professional users and consequently the build quality is superb. Most outer parts are made of metal and carry the crinkle finish typical for professional grade Nikkor lenses at that time.

When you used the 80-200 on your D800, were the corners soft and center sharp wide open or was the whole frame soft wide open? B/c if it was just corners it wouldn't matter on dx. Tripod collar is too short, will have to flip it up to hold the zoom barrel. I hold my hood most of the time so it's not too much of a concern for me. Unfortunately it did not perform well at 2.8 on that camera. The lens is (as is well known) soft wide open, and the D800 was quite unforgiving to show that in that respect. So I sold it and upgraded to a 2.8/70-200 VRII. Avoid the TC-20E if you're counting every pixel; it loses some sharpness at the largest apertures. It now is only f/5.6 wide open. The left side of the lens barrel carries two control switches. The upper one switches between AF (with manual override) and purely manual focus modes. The second switch is a focus limiter. Between the zoom and focus rings the lens carries a set of buttons distributed around the barrel. Unlike on higher end prime lenses, those buttons are not configurable and only provide AF stop functionality.Not for: I wouldn't bother with this heavy professional lens on a DX camera. I'd use any DX lens, like the 55-200mm VR, instead. This lens will not autofocus with the cheapest D40, D40x, D60, D3000 or D5000; get any AF-S lens like the 55-200mm VR or 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II instead for those cameras. This lens requires moving a switch to get between auto and manual focus; you'll need a newer AF-S model if this is important to you. On a DX sensor giving 300mm equiv field of view I often use a monopod, significantly more often than I do with my 150-500 OS ! The lens has flaws but at the end of the day, the images you get with it are amazing and sharp enough. As I said, its pros outweigh its cons IMHO. This is an FX lens, and works especially well with on FX, 35mm and DX Nikons like the D4s, D4, D810, D800, D800E, D750, D610, D600, D7100, D7000, D700, D3X, D300s, F3, F4, F5 and F6. It works fantastically on manual-focus cameras like the F2AS, F3, FE and FA, since it has real manual-focus and aperture rings that work exactly as they should.

I avoided shooting at F2.8 on the long end. Overall contrast was clearly lower as well as sharpness. Not particularly in the corners. My 80-200 seemed pretty consistent corner to corner. The lens changed character by F3.5, so I just generally tried to shoot it at F3.5 or F4 when not going for more depth of field. At F4 is was fine, and I'd expect it to still be fine on a D800 or D7100's pixel density. Guess what I missed the thingy about 3 days later. And after looking at the 'bokeh' of my 70-300 VR I had had it. As Nikon introduced and then cancelled each of these successively larger, heavier, more expensive and more feature-laden short-timer models, this extraordinary professional 80-200mm f/2.8 lens has never faltered. This 80-200mm f/2.8 AF was Nikon's top pro zoom from 1988-1992. Optically this lens is unsurpassed and the same optical design is still sold today.AF is slow. One full turn (two half-turns) of the AF screw only pulls focus from infinity down to 88 feet (27 meters). This is much slower than the current 80-200mm f/2.8, but fast enough for things that hold still.

Real sunstars can't be added later in Photoshop with any easy method; they require the real reflection from the extraordinarily bright disk of the sun, present in nature but absent in even 16-bit raw digital files, to excite them.

ProductDetail.ProductTabs.ForumError

This lens has no internal optical stabilization, however it works with internal sensor-shift Image Stabilization (IS or VR (Vibration Reduction)) in some of Nikon's mirrorless Z cameras with the FTZ adapter. The 80-200 lens did cost me quite a bit extra and it was quite difficult to find a new one. I am thrilled with the performance and I believe that in the end it will prove to be worth the extra cost. In short the lens has become virtually invisible between what I see and what I want to print.