DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Nikon 80-200 to buy or not to buy?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 31, (reverse)
AuthorThread
11/09/2010 10:57:54 AM · #1
I am considering this lens (a HUGE purchase that I have considered for several years now).
It actaully involves me selling a portion of some public stock that I have acquired. So anyway, I'm thinking it will mostly complete my photographic needs.
I'm looking to this fine community to help me determine whether this is the best choice.

I'm thinking this will be the lens I will take to sports event and things like that as my kids get older. Not really sure if I will use it for portraits because the 50mm is working pretty well for me right now.

So anyway, if I'm looking for a lens to complete my modest collection, this is the one, yes?

thanks,
Tate
11/09/2010 12:37:36 PM · #2
I think you may have issues getting that on the camera you have listed next to your name.....8~)
11/09/2010 12:50:12 PM · #3
Surely there's an app for that - right? ;D
11/09/2010 01:02:04 PM · #4
Yes, its a beauty!

To save some of your public stock think about a used one from craigslist or ebay (be careful.. newer 2 rings one vs. older push-pull type) - I picked mine locally through craigslist after trying it out for $650.

11/09/2010 07:24:26 PM · #5
Yep, I have that one. Overall, it's an excellent lens, especially for the price. My opinions, in no particular order:

* Image quality is excellent from f/4 onwards. If you're pixel peeping, you might see the difference between the 70-200 and the 80-200, once it's printed, nobody's going to see the difference..
* Mine has a fair bit of CA at f/2.8. Not a deal breaker, but something to consider if you're shooting weddings.
* Focusing is a bit slow, especially compared to the 70-200.
* If you've never used a lens this heavy, you're in for a treat. You might want to consider a monopod. I can't handhold the thing for long without shaking. I'm a smallish woman, though, so YMMV.
* If you're planning on hand holding, you might want to save your pennies for a 70-200. VR is your friend at this size.
* It works nicely with the Kenko Pro and Tamron SP teleconverters, but doesn't autofocus with the Nikon ones.

Echoing what 21.gif vikas said about buying used. Definitely make sure it has the ring zoom, not the push-pull zoom. I had a push-pull zoom one that I bought at an estate sale a few years ago. Image quality was fine, but focus speed was the slowest I've ever seen on a lens that claimed to be autofocus.
11/09/2010 07:58:19 PM · #6
Ken Rockwell is particularly biased. As such, take what he says lightly.
In any case, his review is particularly helpful:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/80200.htm
11/10/2010 01:12:10 PM · #7
For a moment I thought the 70-200 may be a possibility. But there is no way I can justify the cost at this point. But if i do get the 80-200 and then upgrade to the 70-200 some day, apparently, I can MAKE money?

Ebay 80-200

Amazon price

What am I missing here? there's more than a day left on the Ebay item and it's already higher than Amazon!
I guess people seriously trust e-Bay personally, I would really hesitate to buy somethign like this on ebay not pay more.
I must be missing something.
11/10/2010 04:57:52 PM · #8
some people don't look around first before they buy things.
11/10/2010 05:01:51 PM · #9
Originally posted by tate:

.What am I missing here? there's more than a day left on the Ebay item and it's already higher than Amazon!
I guess people seriously trust e-Bay personally, I would really hesitate to buy somethign like this on ebay not pay more.
I must be missing something.


You are missing the buzz people get bidding. They seem to forget all logic and descend into a bidding war to win, not matter what the cost! That's eBay and why it is so successful.
11/10/2010 05:06:45 PM · #10
Originally posted by tate:

For a moment I thought the 70-200 may be a possibility. But there is no way I can justify the cost at this point.


May I just add.. The 70-200 is an AMAZING lens..
I thought lugging that much weight around would be tiring and it would only come out when absolutely necessary.. But after only about a month of ownership, it's only been changed once.

The VR makes a huge difference. The difference between 70 and 80, not so much.

Keep in mind that there are two kinds of 70-200 2.8. The VR, and its replacement, the VR II.
In Amazon, you can still get the VR (the first model) for about $1500..
Not TOO much more than what the 80-200 is going for.

11/10/2010 05:27:18 PM · #11
I have the 70-200 VR I and love it. I had no money to rightly spend on it when I purchased it and was going the same route as you with the 80-200. I even bought a 80-200 off of craigslist and immediately wished I just had coughed up more money. The lens I purchased had a small crack in the ring that toggles between auto and manual focus and the owner refunded my money. I bought a new lens the the next day and have never been so happy with a purchase. The lens has paid for itself both with client work and personal enjoyment. There are some differences in the two lenses you posted. It has to to do with the auto focus system. The ebay lens has an AFS focusing system which if I remember from my prior research was the top of of the 80-200 food chain in terms of focus speed and accuracy. The amazon lens I don't believe shows this designation, so probably doesn't have it. If you are going to get a used one, I was able to find them between $800-1000 on craiglist. If you are going to buy a new one for a $1000+, save up for a few months more and look for a used 70-200 vr1 on fredmiranda.com. I saw some recently sold for $1350. If this is not needed but only wanted right now, I would save up a few hundred more dollhairs. I think in a couple years you will be glad you had the VR for some family occasion down the line. Also I am a huge fan of the 50 mm also, and this lens produces excellent portraits. I have used my 50 mm sparsely ever since I got his lens. Hope this helps.
Joe
11/10/2010 05:38:23 PM · #12
Originally posted by tate:

For a moment I thought the 70-200 may be a possibility. But there is no way I can justify the cost at this point. But if i do get the 80-200 and then upgrade to the 70-200 some day, apparently, I can MAKE money?

Ebay 80-200

Amazon price

What am I missing here? there's more than a day left on the Ebay item and it's already higher than Amazon!
I guess people seriously trust e-Bay personally, I would really hesitate to buy somethign like this on ebay not pay more.
I must be missing something.


The one in Ebay is the AF-S version, much faster and silent focus than the AF, that is why it is more expensive. I own the AF-S, it is a GREAT lens. If I was you I would wait until Christmas is gone and try to pick up an AF-S. I bought mine about 3 years ago for under $1000 from Ebay.
11/11/2010 12:16:24 AM · #13
Amazing, go for it .
11/11/2010 12:31:38 AM · #14
I just sold my 80-200 for $786 on ebay, I just bought the 70-200 VR to replace it. The 80-200 will be missed.
11/11/2010 10:11:20 AM · #15
dang

Originally posted by caba:

I just sold my 80-200 for $786 on ebay, I just bought the 70-200 VR to replace it. The 80-200 will be missed.
11/11/2010 10:17:42 AM · #16
55-200 is 189 on Amazon Makes me wonder if I should just get that for now and then save up for the 70-200.
Ugh.
I REALLY fear buying used - I haven't had the best luck on eBay - and Craigslist has no buyer protection.
AKA wussing out =[
11/11/2010 10:35:56 AM · #17
Originally posted by tate:

55-200 is 189 on Amazon Makes me wonder if I should just get that for now and then save up for the 70-200.
Ugh.
I REALLY fear buying used - I haven't had the best luck on eBay - and Craigslist has no buyer protection.
AKA wussing out =[


You can't even begin to compare the slow 55-200 to the fast and super-sharp 80-200. If you are patient, you should be able to find a good deal in Ebay including a money back clause after a trial period, you can't beat that. Again, I would suggest you get the AF-S instead of the AF, and, I am sure you'll do much better once Christmas is over.
11/11/2010 10:54:07 AM · #18
What do you think would be a good price for a used AF-S version used? You're probably right about the Christmas thing.

Maybe I just need to keep looking at pics like this to give me motivation she represents this lens, I am the frog? ;P

Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_728710.jpg

Originally posted by senor_kasper:

Originally posted by tate:

55-200 is 189 on Amazon Makes me wonder if I should just get that for now and then save up for the 70-200.
Ugh.
I REALLY fear buying used - I haven't had the best luck on eBay - and Craigslist has no buyer protection.
AKA wussing out =[


You can't even begin to compare the slow 55-200 to the fast and super-sharp 80-200. If you are patient, you should be able to find a good deal in Ebay including a money back clause after a trial period, you can't beat that. Again, I would suggest you get the AF-S instead of the AF, and, I am sure you'll do much better once Christmas is over.


Message edited by author 2010-11-11 10:59:21.
11/11/2010 02:54:59 PM · #19
DPC a great help as usual. Anyone know if there's a IS/VR version of either of these?

sigma
or
tamron
11/11/2010 03:06:46 PM · #20
Originally posted by tate:

DPC a great help as usual. Anyone know if there's a IS/VR version of either of these?

sigma
or
tamron


Don't know about the Tamaron, but Sigma have just released (in February this year) a replacement for their 70-200 f/2.8 lens which includes image stabilisation.
You can read reviews here:
url=http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma_70-200_2p8_os_c16/

Just keep in mind that the retail price is about $1800 in the US, and it being new I'm not sure how quick they'll be selling in the second-hand market..

I have heard good reviews in regards to the first Sigma 70-200 though.
Gotta think as to whether you'll actually make use of IS, or whether your lens will spend most its time hooked up to a tripod anyway..

Message edited by author 2010-11-11 15:10:38.
12/30/2010 01:30:02 PM · #21
Back to this thread
I'm pretty likely sticking with the purchase of a new 80-200 ALthough as always, the feedback here is almost too good ;) and can make a person even more indecisive !

Any thoughts on a decent monopod for this lens?
12/30/2010 04:02:14 PM · #22
Originally posted by tate:

Back to this thread
I'm pretty likely sticking with the purchase of a new 80-200 ALthough as always, the feedback here is almost too good ;) and can make a person even more indecisive !

Any thoughts on a decent monopod for this lens?


I have the 70-200mm f2.8 lens, and use a Manfrotto monopod. I use my tripod ballhead on the monopod as well for easier transitions to portrait orientation. It also makes it easier to carry the camera/lens, as I leave the camera/lens attached to the monopod, and just lean it against my shoulder as I am walking around.
12/30/2010 07:51:25 PM · #23
FWIW...was considering the 70-200 and 80-200 recently but ended up going with the 300 f.4. Yes you lose a stop or two but a frickin great lens. Love it.
12/31/2010 12:37:13 PM · #24
Hmmm I need a range I think. Although I do like primes.
I was having a look at the sigma 150-50 and wondering as well.

0
Originally posted by snaffles:

FWIW...was considering the 70-200 and 80-200 recently but ended up going with the 300 f.4. Yes you lose a stop or two but a frickin great lens. Love it.
12/31/2010 12:39:35 PM · #25
I'm seriously condsidering the purchase TODAY because I could include it as a deduction just click buy ;}
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 09/20/2017 09:43:55 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2017 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 09/20/2017 09:43:55 PM EDT.