nikkor 80-200mm afD f/2.8

[cobwebbie]

---

mga brad ug sis.. what do you think of this lens? i know it cost lesser than the new 70-200 VRII..

thanks daan sa mo-reply..

last hirit... considering sa presyo sa bag-o nga 70-200mm VRII, would you go for 80-200mm or get another lens?

salamat kaayo..

[wooden_heart]

mga brad ug sis.. what do you think of this lens? i know it cost lesser than the new 70-200 VRII..

thanks daan sa mo-reply..

last hirit... considering sa presyo sa bag-o nga 70-200mm VRII, would you go for 80-200mm or get another lens?

salamat kaayo..

matod pa ni ken rockweel, its a best buy daw compared to "garbage" (he uses this word actually) third party counterpart

[hayden]

musta na abbs?

[alucard_x]

Yeah I agree its better than the third party on the somewhere the same focal length. I own one and planning to upgrade to a 70-200mm VR. Kay nag-kabarato na man gud ang 70-200mm VR plus it performs better than my the 80-200mm.

My experience with the lens is the chromatic Abrasion is prominent but can be fix thru PP. It performs very well with my D300, fast AF and quick response. Dli lang ko nahan kay banha kaayo. Wala man gud ni SWM unlike the 80-200mm f2.8 AF-S

Your last question, if I would be going for a fullframe body I might consider this lens. But I'm still going for the VR1 if I get a good deal.

[sizzlingROBOT]

These lenses produce quality images and are ideal in low light situations. No doubt. But, if i were to choose, I picked the 80-200. Wait a minute?! what about the VR? The one with the VR should have an edge over the other, right? Well, here is my thought about it. VR only works if you shoot at 1/200 -- I'm just being conservative -- and below at a higher focal length, let say between 135-200mm. If you shoot over 1/200 most of the time at those focal ranges, VR is useless.

And, one more thing, especially to those who prefer their lenses with VR, if you expect at least three PAID shooting gigs in a month, then, get the one packed with VR otherwise settle with the 80-200.

Cheers!

[Recon25]

Sir,
if you can afford the 70-200 VRII, this is the best lens especially with nikkon's NANO coating. the nano lenses simply outperforms the older models. the 24-70, 16-35, as well as the 70-200 is simply sharp, amazingly... but since budget is an issue then the 80-200 can also deliver superb images. the only flaw I see over this lens is that the manual/af ring will break sooner or later but it is no big deal. I also wonder why nikon released this lens with a cup hood rather than a petal hood but third party petal hoods are already available.

db

[vanix09]

@TS: 80-200mm F2.8 is a good alternative if in case you cant afford the amazing 70-200mm VR1 or perhaps VR2. pero if can afford kaau ka, then go for the best! wat matters most man gud is the budget

[nowayL]

How about the low end 55mm-200mmVR mga Bro? Wala ni ayo?

[alucard_x]

I agree with recon about the MF/AF ring, mine got busted during a crowd squeeze. But it was easily replaced. Left it with the service center in the morning and got it in the afternoon.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2794/...6756a1b6_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3559/...97ebec12_o.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4011/...4c2f9f87_o.jpg


I added a lenscoat with lens to make it look rugged.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4034/...34a946d0_o.jpg

[sizzlingROBOT]

I read positive reviews about this lens. It does produce respectable sharp images. However, it's not good in low light situation, the only downside I see of the lens. Only those who does not know how to use the lens says "Wala ni ayo."

How about the low end 55mm-200mmVR mga Bro? Wala ni ayo?