Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Nikon 80-200 AF

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 12:18:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Warehouse Express (UK dealers) list the Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8D ED AF as
'discontinued' Any one know if Nikon are replacing it with a lens of similar
focal lengths or giving it an overhaul?

More about : nikon 200

Anonymous
May 22, 2005 12:18:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"JackN" <jackn@btinternet.com> writes:
> Warehouse Express (UK dealers) list the Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8D ED AF as
> 'discontinued' Any one know if Nikon are replacing it with a lens of similar
> focal lengths or giving it an overhaul?

I thought it was already replaced by the 80-200 AF-S and more recently
by the 70-200 AF-S G VR. The VR is the one you really want.
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 1:03:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Thanks for that. looks like the UK dealers are trying to offload 'old'
lenses. Excuse my ignorance, I'm new to digital/autofocus (still using a
manual Nikon FE which I bought in 1979). I've recently bought a D70. Does
the 'S' suffix in the lens description indicate silent wave motor?
Related resources
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 1:03:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"JackN" <jackn@btinternet.com> writes:
> Thanks for that. looks like the UK dealers are trying to offload 'old'
> lenses. Excuse my ignorance, I'm new to digital/autofocus (still using a
> manual Nikon FE which I bought in 1979). I've recently bought a D70. Does
> the 'S' suffix in the lens description indicate silent wave motor?

Yes.
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 1:03:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"JackN" <jackn@btinternet.com> writes:
> Thanks for that. looks like the UK dealers are trying to offload 'old'
> lenses.

I don't know whether the AF-D non-S version was actually discontinued
when the S version came out. The S was much more expensive and people
who didn't need the faster focusing might have preferred the cheaper D
version. The 70-200 VR costs a little more than the S but is much
more desirable for handheld shooting because of the VR. It makes me
quite a bit less interested in the non-VR version despite a very large
price difference.
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 1:18:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

The price difference, that's the clincher for me. There's no way that I can
justify spending £1000+ on a 'toy'. I'm not a pro photographer and that sort
of disposable income is out of my league.
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 1:18:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"JackN" <jackn@btinternet.com> writes:
> The price difference, that's the clincher for me. There's no way
> that I can justify spending £1000+ on a 'toy'. I'm not a pro
> photographer and that sort of disposable income is out of my league.

You can get the AF-D for around 700 USD over here, the AF-S G VR is
about 2x that. Actually it would make sense for them to make something
comparable for the DX sensor and it would hopefully cost less. The VR
is too expensive for me too. I had been sort of interested in the AF-D
for a while, but the VR made me lose interest in it, so I end up with
neither one. That's the financially wisest outcome for me anyway :) .

You can rent a 300/2.8 EDIF AF for around $45/day around here and I
expect that when the 70-200 has been around a bit longer, rental will
cost about the same amount. So if I were to shoot theater events or
things like that as an amateur, I'd probably go for an occasional
70-200 VR rental rather than buying an 80-200 non-VR. For a while
I used a Spiratone 135/1.8 for that kind of thing, but the images
were so soft that I haven't used that lens in quite a while.
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 4:59:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; writes:

> "JackN" <jackn@btinternet.com> writes:
>> Warehouse Express (UK dealers) list the Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8D ED AF as
>> 'discontinued' Any one know if Nikon are replacing it with a lens of similar
>> focal lengths or giving it an overhaul?
>
> I thought it was already replaced by the 80-200 AF-S and more recently
> by the 70-200 AF-S G VR. The VR is the one you really want.

Except it's a G, so I can't use it on any of my film bodies.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 6:35:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 22 May 2005 08:18:35 +0000 (UTC), "JackN"
<jackn@btinternet.com> wrote:

>Warehouse Express (UK dealers) list the Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8D ED AF as
>'discontinued' Any one know if Nikon are replacing it with a lens of similar
>focal lengths or giving it an overhaul?

Neither Nikon's US nor Worldwide website lists it as discontinued,
and B&H shows current stock for the US warranty version.

--
Michael Benveniste -- mhb-offer@clearether.com
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 7:58:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 22 May 2005 12:59:02 -0500, in rec.photo.digital David Dyer-Bennet
<dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote:

>Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; writes:

>> I thought it was already replaced by the 80-200 AF-S and more recently
>> by the 70-200 AF-S G VR. The VR is the one you really want.
>
>Except it's a G, so I can't use it on any of my film bodies.

I believe you are misinformed. It's a full size lens, not a DX.
----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index...
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 2:06:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Actually the DX version of 70-200 is near the horizon I believe.
The way Sigma aggresively releasing their new DG lens range ... I think
Nikon would follow very soon.

=bob=

"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; wrote in message
news:7xd5rjhao3.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...

> You can get the AF-D for around 700 USD over here, the AF-S G VR is
> about 2x that. Actually it would make sense for them to make something
> comparable for the DX sensor and it would hopefully cost less.
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 1:11:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ed Ruf wrote:

> On Sun, 22 May 2005 12:59:02 -0500, in rec.photo.digital David Dyer-Bennet
> <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote:
>
>>Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; writes:
>
>>> I thought it was already replaced by the 80-200 AF-S and more recently
>>> by the 70-200 AF-S G VR. The VR is the one you really want.
>>
>>Except it's a G, so I can't use it on any of my film bodies.
>
> I believe you are misinformed. It's a full size lens, not a DX.
> ----------
> Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
> See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
> http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index...

But it's a 'G' lens so he can't use it on any film bodies which require an
aperture ring, which is what his point was I think.

RAS
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 1:11:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ronnie Sellar <ronnie@nospam.com> writes:
> But it's a 'G' lens so he can't use it on any film bodies which require an
> aperture ring, which is what his point was I think.

All recent autofocus film bodies can use G lenses. It's an issue on some
older ones and on MF bodies.
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 1:11:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 23 May 2005 09:11:54 +0100, in rec.photo.digital Ronnie Sellar
<ronnie@nospam.com> wrote:

>But it's a 'G' lens so he can't use it on any film bodies which require an
>aperture ring, which is what his point was I think.

That occurred to me after the post. From
http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources/nikon_articles/...
it would appear only the FM2n, FM3A and F3 can't use the G lenses.
----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index...
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 4:49:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ed Ruf wrote:

> On Mon, 23 May 2005 09:11:54 +0100, in rec.photo.digital Ronnie Sellar
> <ronnie@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>But it's a 'G' lens so he can't use it on any film bodies which require an
>>aperture ring, which is what his point was I think.
>
> That occurred to me after the post. From
>
http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources/nikon_articles/...
> it would appear only the FM2n, FM3A and F3 can't use the G lenses.


Also the FM, FE, FE2, FA, EM, FG, FG2, FM10, F2, F, all the
Nikkormats...........

RAS
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 6:31:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ed Ruf <egruf_usenet@cox.net> writes:

> On Sun, 22 May 2005 12:59:02 -0500, in rec.photo.digital David Dyer-Bennet
> <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote:
>
>>Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; writes:
>
>>> I thought it was already replaced by the 80-200 AF-S and more recently
>>> by the 70-200 AF-S G VR. The VR is the one you really want.
>>
>>Except it's a G, so I can't use it on any of my film bodies.
>
> I believe you are misinformed. It's a full size lens, not a DX.

I said "G", not "DX". A G lens isn't useful on a Nikon F, an FM, an
FM2, and not *very* useful on an N90, my most recent film body.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 6:31:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> writes:
> >>> I thought it was already replaced by the 80-200 AF-S and more recently
> >>> by the 70-200 AF-S G VR. The VR is the one you really want.
> >>Except it's a G, so I can't use it on any of my film bodies....
> I said "G", not "DX". A G lens isn't useful on a Nikon F, an FM, an
> FM2, and not *very* useful on an N90, my most recent film body.

This is a significant problem with entry level G lenses. For a $1500
lens like the 70-200, it does't bother me as much, since you can get a
new camera body to go with it without increasing the overall expense
all that much. If there's some nontrivial technical advantage gained
by omitting the aperture ring (i.e. the electronic diaphragm makes the
lens mechanics a lot simpler), then the omission is justified. If
there's no advantage beyond a slight cost reduction, then it's an
annoyance but not a really major one.
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 6:33:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ed Ruf <egruf_usenet@cox.net> writes:

> On Mon, 23 May 2005 09:11:54 +0100, in rec.photo.digital Ronnie Sellar
> <ronnie@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>But it's a 'G' lens so he can't use it on any film bodies which require an
>>aperture ring, which is what his point was I think.
>
> That occurred to me after the post. From
> http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources/nikon_articles/...
> it would appear only the FM2n, FM3A and F3 can't use the G lenses.

On an N90, I'd have only shutter-priority and program exposure, which
is pretty close to not being able to use the lens at all by my
standards. My body collection is an F, two FMs, an FM2, an N90, and a
Fuji S2 digital, so a G lens is fine for the S2, but of pretty minimal
use anywhere else.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
May 23, 2005 7:08:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 23 May 2005 14:31:20 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net>
wrote:

>I said "G", not "DX". A G lens isn't useful on a Nikon F, an FM, an
>FM2, and not *very* useful on an N90, my most recent film body.

I fully understand your lens/body compatibility issues. FWIW, I have
the 80-200 f2.8 AFS lens and it works very well in manual focus mode
with my F3. It will also work with your F90. I did buy mine used and
in good condition for $850 USD with box, case, hood and caps. It is a
versatile lens, but I also have a F100 and F5. The F3 still gets used
frequently and the lens mounts well, and is especially comfortable
with MD4 drive.

I thought I could work around the "G" lens issues as others have
suggested, but I really miss not being able to use the my 24-85mm
f3.5-4.5 AFS "G" lens on my F3. That would make a very compact travel
kit.

Regards,
Roger
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 7:08:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Roger <leica35@yahoo.com> writes:
> I thought I could work around the "G" lens issues as others have
> suggested, but I really miss not being able to use the my 24-85mm
> f3.5-4.5 AFS "G" lens on my F3. That would make a very compact travel
> kit.

That's a nice lens, however in the case of the 70-200 G VR, the main
attraction is the VR feature which is completely useless on an MF body
since VR needs electrical power. In this instance the 80-200 D would
make much more sense, since it's lighter and costs half as much.
May 23, 2005 7:28:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 23 May 2005 13:13:42 -0700, Paul Rubin
<http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; wrote:

>That's a nice lens, however in the case of the 70-200 G VR, the main
>attraction is the VR feature which is completely useless on an MF body
>since VR needs electrical power. In this instance the 80-200 D would
>make much more sense, since it's lighter and costs half as much.

Yeah, I shouldn't have thrown in the comment about the "G" lens. For
David I wanted him to know that the 80-200 AFS could be a choice that
would work nicely on the N90 and his manual bodies.

I've used the non AFS 80-200 AFD lens and IMO it responds slowly on
bodies that do not have auxiliary grip power - it requires the extra
amperage to really drive that screw. The AF-S focus speed is also
voltage/current dependent, but the AF-S capability does show up as
visibly faster AF on the F4/N90 generation.

Regards,
Roger
Anonymous
May 24, 2005 1:03:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Roger <leica35@yahoo.com> writes:

> On 23 May 2005 13:13:42 -0700, Paul Rubin
> <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; wrote:
>
>>That's a nice lens, however in the case of the 70-200 G VR, the main
>>attraction is the VR feature which is completely useless on an MF body
>>since VR needs electrical power. In this instance the 80-200 D would
>>make much more sense, since it's lighter and costs half as much.
>
> Yeah, I shouldn't have thrown in the comment about the "G" lens. For
> David I wanted him to know that the 80-200 AFS could be a choice that
> would work nicely on the N90 and his manual bodies.

Sure. I'm actually using a Tokina f2.8 in that range already (which I
bought on the same order with the N90, in 1994), but the Nikon AFS
would be nice.

One of the problems I'm facing right now is whether I should give up
on 35mm film completely, or whether I should invest in one last film
camera like an f4, f5, or f100 (and dump all the current ones). I
don't like dumping the existing ones, because it's darned nice to have
an FM2 and a couple of fast primes to wander around with at night
(with fast B&W film). And to carry as a backup body and such. But in
fact I haven't shot any 35mm film in 2005, and I think it was about 6
rolls for 2004, so maybe I shouldn't be spending money in that
direction at all.

And people say having money doesn't solve problems!
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
May 24, 2005 1:03:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> writes:
> One of the problems I'm facing right now is whether I should give up
> on 35mm film completely, or whether I should invest in one last film
> camera like an f4, f5, or f100 (and dump all the current ones).

You can get F4's unbelievably cheap these days, but they're way behind
the times. F5's are still pretty expensive. F100 might be your best
bet.

> I don't like dumping the existing ones, because it's darned nice to
> have an FM2 and a couple of fast primes to wander around with at
> night (with fast B&W film).

Sure, hang on to your FM2 by all means. It's not THAT small or light
a camera though. You might look for an FG or FG20 on ebay. Those
are very cheap and underrated, and lots smaller/lighter than the FM2
while not as flimsy as the Cosina-built FM10/FE10.

I'd like to hope there will be fast primes for DX-format DSLR's soon,
less expensive than the full frame counterparts. But there's a Sigma
30/1.4 just introduced, listed at Adorama for $450. The film
equivalent would be a 50/1.4 which means the digital-only Sigma is 2x
as expensive as the comparable full-frame Nikkor. That's not a good
sign.
May 24, 2005 12:39:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 23 May 2005 21:03:20 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net>
wrote:

>One of the problems I'm facing right now is whether I should give up
>on 35mm film completely, or whether I should invest in one last film
>camera like an f4, f5, or f100 (and dump all the current ones). I
>don't like dumping the existing ones, because it's darned nice to have
>an FM2 and a couple of fast primes to wander around with at night
>(with fast B&W film). And to carry as a backup body and such. But in
>fact I haven't shot any 35mm film in 2005, and I think it was about 6
>rolls for 2004, so maybe I shouldn't be spending money in that
>direction at all.

I wrestle with the film/digital dilemma all the while the used
film-camera prices continue to plummet. For travel, I've reached a
compromise. I continue to carry my Leica M6 with 35 and 50mm lenses,
or an SLR kit. And I have a Canon S60 with a 28-100mm zoom that I use
to fill in the gaps and supplement with digital (for screen savers too
:-) ). I scan my film. The Canon also provides me with a miniscule
strobe. Most of what I like to do is available light so this works out
pretty well.

If I'm not carrying that kit, my next light-weight selection is a F3
with 28mm f2.8 AIS, 45mm f2.8 AIP and 105mm f2.5 AIS. This also makes
a good travel selection. I will have to fess up and say that I'm
substituting my F100 body more and more with the MF lenses. I find
that the electronic focus indicator in the F100 viewfinder is
providing better results than I can on the F3 screen for much of the
low-light photography that I do.

Last year I found someone who was really trying to unload an F5 and I
split the difference between KEH used and dealer trade-in with him. I
got a beautiful F5 for about $800. It's an unbelievable camera and it
outperforms my F100 in nearly every way except for some viewfinder
ergonomics. In today's market I think either the F100 or F5 is a real
buy if you are continuing in film. If you must have blindingly fast AF
and 8 frames per second, or need the features of removable finders and
mirror lock up, the F5 is the obvious choice. Otherwise, I find the
F100 (with the 45mm f2.8 AI-P lens) approaching the status of
carry-everywhere. I also have a 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 AFS "G" lens that I
use with these bodies as a travel or walking-around lens for daylight
work. It gives brilliant photos and is so fast on the F5 you are hard
pressed to see it focus.

I have to travel at least one week, usually two weeks, a month. Film
and having someone else do the processing is an enhancement to my work
flow. All of this for a few rolls a year is probably not the right
answer, but there are situations where it makes sense. Given my AF
bodies, my F3 and 24/28/35/50/85/105/135 AIS lenses likely don't make
any sense. But I still dig them out and find a use for all of them
depending on occasion.

Finally, the only camera I wish I would have never gotten rid of was
my FM2n. The LED exposure readout was the best I've ever used for my
low-light SLR work. I have a friend who has a FE2 and FM2n, one for
daylight one for available light. The compactness of the body,
especially with the 50mm f1.8 AIS lens or the 45mm f2.8 AI-P lens
makes it a joy to keep at your side. I don't think I every found a
photographic problem I couldn't solve with that camera and a table top
tripod. (I have done better daylight fill flash with my F100).

With the exception of my F100 and my 35mm f2.0 ASPH Summicron all my
equipment has been purchased used over several years.

If you go digital, I would support your idea to keep your FM2 and some
favorite lenses. I'm finding it difficult to take digital images with
a reasonable degree of high-iso noise with a small footprint camera.
It's difficult to find a compact camera that offers wide angle views
and (fast) reliable low light focusing. There are cameras with strong
focus assist lights or even DSLRs, but even the latter are lacking in
the fast 28mm equivalent or wider WA lens selections.

Enough of this already :-). Best of luck in your choices. My friends
scratch their heads when I stop to load a new roll of film, but I'm
still comfortable with it and having a neighborhood photo kiosk in my
workflow is a big time saver to me.
>
>And people say having money doesn't solve problems!

I replace a lot of money with patience and stubbornness. Although some
of my stubbornness may be why I don't have a lot of money :-).

Regards,
Roger
June 1, 2005 7:17:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; wrote in message
news:7xd5rjk6rm.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
> "JackN" <jackn@btinternet.com> writes:
>> Warehouse Express (UK dealers) list the Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8D ED AF as
>> 'discontinued' Any one know if Nikon are replacing it with a lens of
>> similar
>> focal lengths or giving it an overhaul?
>
> I thought it was already replaced by the 80-200 AF-S and more recently
> by the 70-200 AF-S G VR. The VR is the one you really want.

PROVIDED you have a camera body that can deal with a "G" lens!
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 12:33:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"george" <nowhere@newsonly.com> wrote in message
news:9Rnne.43636$rt1.43523@fe04.lga...
>
> "Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; wrote in message
> news:7xd5rjk6rm.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
>> "JackN" <jackn@btinternet.com> writes:
>>> Warehouse Express (UK dealers) list the Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8D ED AF as
>>> 'discontinued' Any one know if Nikon are replacing it with a lens of
>>> similar
>>> focal lengths or giving it an overhaul?
>>
>> I thought it was already replaced by the 80-200 AF-S and more recently
>> by the 70-200 AF-S G VR. The VR is the one you really want.
>
> PROVIDED you have a camera body that can deal with a "G" lens!
>

Well, if you're in the DIGITAL newsgroup discussing the lens, you likely do,
now don't you.
!