Looking at the Nikon 80-200 f2.8 zoom: Why or why not?

[Codger]

I'm filling out a new digital kit built around a D610.  I have the Nikon 16-35 f4 and 50mm f1.4D in hand.  I'm considering Nikon's 85mm f1.4D, but really like the idea of having a longer focal range to work with, too.  I'm looking at an excellent local 80-200 f2.8 for $700; KEH shows the prime 85 is going to be about the same or slightly higher.  I use the wide zoom for architectural and real estate.  From 50mm and up, my primary emphasis is on landscape shooting.  So, from a practical usage perspective, what are the pros and cons of getting the 80-200 zoom?

[Colorado David]

I own a copy of that lens and it is excellent.  It is an older design and does not have VR.  If you are shooting stationary landscapes from a tripod, that shouldn't be an issue.  I also have its replacement, the 70-200 2.8 VR.  It is a heavier lens, but with a substantially better tripod collar.  I have shot wildlife handheld with both lenses and with good long lens technique, you get perfectly good, useable images from both so I don't know that VR is a deal breaker even if you're shooting wildlife handheld.  I can't remember mounting this lens since I bought the 70-200 VR, but I couldn't let it go for what they bring.  Others may have a different opinion, but also keep in mind that this lens is still in Nikon's current production.  I should also point out that there was an older design that had no tripod collar and was a push/pull zoom.

[John Nollendorfs]

You might consider the new 24-120. Excellent lens with VR. I got mine when they had the $200 rebate, so it cost me only $1100. I have the 80-200 2.8 from the early 90's too.

On a recent trip to Moab, I found I did not remove the 24-120. It fit all my needs on that trip!

[David Anderson]

I had one years ago and it was sharp enough, but the AF tended to hunt in low light.
By todays standards the AF would probably be a bit slow as well.

[melchiorpavone]

I'm filling out a new digital kit built around a D610.  I have the Nikon 16-35 f4 and 50mm f1.4D in hand.  I'm considering Nikon's 85mm f1.4D, but really like the idea of having a longer focal range to work with, too.  I'm looking at an excellent local 80-200 f2.8 for $700; KEH shows the prime 85 is going to be about the same or slightly higher.  I use the wide zoom for architectural and real estate.  From 50mm and up, my primary emphasis is on landscape shooting.  So, from a practical usage perspective, what are the pros and cons of getting the 80-200 zoom?

Zooms have many more elements (in this case, 16!) and thus poor contrast. A 180mm or a 200mm and a fast short tele are a better combo.

[BernardLanguillier]

The newer 70-200 f4 is also an excellent lens. I have personally replaced my 70-200 f2.8 VR I by the 70-200f4 because it is lighter and a bit better optically at the optimal aperture.

Obviously f2.8 helps with some low light action situations, but if you are mostly in landscape/portrait/static subjects, the f4 version is a very good option.

Cheers,
Bernard

[kers]

+1

I am also doing mostly architecture and always carry the latest 70-200 2.8 VR ; but for this i would like the d4 ...
Also it has a very good VR .
It is much lighter and smaller to carry around ( i do not use it that much so the 2.8  is mostly 1,5kg extra to carry)

if you are looking for the best optical quality i would consider the Zeiss 135 d2 .

[LawrenceBraunstein]

"The newer 70-200 f4 is also an excellent lens."

I can second what Bernard wrote. Since much of my work involves a considerable amount of hiking, I really appreciate the lighter weight and smaller size. In addition, the 70-200mm f/4 has the latest, third-generation VR (image stabilisation) which works impressively. If you don’t need the speed of a f/2.8, the smaller f/4 lens is certainly worth considering.

Best regard,

Larry

[trevarthan]

I own the 70-200mm f2.8 vr ii. The 85mm 1.4g is sharper at 85mm. I did a focus stack recently with the 70-200mm:


Chattanooga Glass Pedestrian Bridge (focus stacked) by Trevarthan, on Flickr

I don't really care for the way it renders cityscapes. Call me crazy. Just seems like more of a people lens.

[dwswager]

I'm filling out a new digital kit built around a D610.  I have the Nikon 16-35 f4 and 50mm f1.4D in hand.  I'm considering Nikon's 85mm f1.4D, but really like the idea of having a longer focal range to work with, too.  I'm looking at an excellent local 80-200 f2.8 for $700; KEH shows the prime 85 is going to be about the same or slightly higher.  I use the wide zoom for architectural and real estate.  From 50mm and up, my primary emphasis is on landscape shooting.  So, from a practical usage perspective, what are the pros and cons of getting the 80-200 zoom?

I sold my 16 year old 80-200mm f/2.8 ED IF (with tripod foot, think it is 3rd iteration of the lens) for $750 about a year ago.  Other than the faster focus, tracking and ability to use teleconverters on the last 2 iterations (VRI and VRII), it is the best version of that lens!  It is also more compact than the current AFS 70-20mm f/2.8 VRII. 

The 85mm f/1.4 is also a spectacular lens.  The numerous blades make for a rounder apeture and more pleasant out of focus backgrounds than the 85mm f/1.8.  Of course, you're paying almost 4 times as much!

For landscape, I would probably go with the 85mm f/1.4. or even the f/1.8.  A lot less to carry and better close focusing for getting forground elements in focus.  The 1.4 also makes an awesome portrait lens and even a candid lens.

[Colorado David]

The 80-200 f/2.8 we're talking about is not compatible with all Nikon bodies since it requires the somewhat clunky AF motor in the camera body.  The D610 has the capability, but that impacts the autofocus speed.  I have photographed wildlife with mine before getting the VR Silent Wave version and didn't feel overly compromised by it.  After reading the dwswager post above, I will have to get mine out and take some shots with the D800.

[Codger]

Based on many of these responses and some input from another forum, I picked up the Nikon 80-200 f2.8 yesterday.  The price I paid for a really nice used one was less than half what the Nikon 70-200 f4 costs new, and quality used 70-200s are just not available under $1,100.  My 80-200 tipped the scales at $600, mostly because the local shop had three of them and they wanted to generate some cash flow.  Maybe in a year I'll look at a minor upgrade to a used 70-200 but, for now, this will fill out my kit nicely and reasonably.  Thanks for all the input.