Quantcast

New Lens Nikon 80-200 f2.8

kingbee

Monkey
Mar 29, 2004
902
0
Ohio
Got a good deal on this lens used from ebay. Just came in the mail today so I headed out to the park, its pretty heavy, but 200mm @ f2.8 is pretty handy.



Heres just a few shots I took with it.


 

RUFUS

e-douche of the year
Dec 1, 2006
3,488
0
Denver, CO
It wasn't a bad lens when I had it but it was loud and slow. I went to the 70-200 2.8 VR and will never look back.
 

kingbee

Monkey
Mar 29, 2004
902
0
Ohio
If I could have afforded the 70-200 VR I would have got it for sure. I picked this up for $550, the cheapest used 70-200 VR I saw still didnt get much below $2,000 if it did at all.

This will hold me over for a while. Some day Ill get the VR.
 

kingbee

Monkey
Mar 29, 2004
902
0
Ohio
One more I took today. I need to get a uni-pod for it, holding the thing up in the air trying to take pictures of things can get pretty tiring.

Maybe I'm just not used to it yet, but it doesnt auto focus as well as some of my past lenses. Seem like its not sure what to focus on. I'm getting better at manual focusing.

[/IMG]
 

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,848
0
Orange County, CA
The lens doesn't do the focusing, the body does. You might notice poor autofocus in low light with a slow lens, but that doesn't apply to this one.

edit: What lens are you comparing the focus speed to?
 
Last edited:

RUFUS

e-douche of the year
Dec 1, 2006
3,488
0
Denver, CO
Wasn't hating on your purchase by the way, great price for it. Just wanted to give you a heads up as what you can look forward to in the future.
 

Transcend

My Nuts Are Flat
Apr 18, 2002
18,045
0
Towing the party line.
You don't need a monopod for a 70-200 2.8, particularly on a consumer DSLR. It's pretty light weight! Just work on proper technique to keep it steady. Lock down your elbows, keep shutter speeds above 1/200 and you will be good to go!

Enjoy the land of 2.8.

Just be glad it isn't this...Handholding that is tiring!
 

kingbee

Monkey
Mar 29, 2004
902
0
Ohio
Silver - I'm comparing it to my kit lenses (18-55 VR, 55-200 VR) and my also pretty new Sigma 18-50 f2.8. It just doesnt seem to lock onto one thing and focus on it. I was shooting through some tree branches and it wanted to focus on every branch, not just one. Although I did turn the focus onto just the center, that helped.

Rufus - I knew what you were saying. :) I still drool at having a 70-200 VR one day. Right after I find the $2,500 for a D700.

Transcend - I just have to get used to the weight, its a jump from the kit 55-200 VR I had before this. Whats that lens weigh in the picture? Its huge.
 

narlus

Eastcoast Softcore
Staff member
Nov 7, 2001
24,658
25
behind the viewfinder
transcend, i rented a 200 f/2 lens the other night and that was a bit more than 300 f/2.8 which i've hand-held a number of times.

i kinda wished i brought a monopod for it.
 

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,848
0
Orange County, CA
Silver - I'm comparing it to my kit lenses (18-55 VR, 55-200 VR) and my also pretty new Sigma 18-50 f2.8. It just doesnt seem to lock onto one thing and focus on it. I was shooting through some tree branches and it wanted to focus on every branch, not just one. Although I did turn the focus onto just the center, that helped.
That's not a lens issue, that's the camera body.
 

Transcend

My Nuts Are Flat
Apr 18, 2002
18,045
0
Towing the party line.
transcend, i rented a 200 f/2 lens the other night and that was a bit more than 300 f/2.8 which i've hand-held a number of times.

i kinda wished i brought a monopod for it.
Ah ya, I played with one of those from CPS. Not fun to carry around! I haven't used my monopod in ages, it always feels to encumbering for me.
 

kingbee

Monkey
Mar 29, 2004
902
0
Ohio
Well I'm shopping for my next lens already. Has anyone shot the Sigma 24-70 f2.8? At a third of the price of the Nikon its pretty tempting. I know the build quality isnt as great as Nikons. Just looking for opinions from anyone that has shot either lens.
 
Mar 4, 2003
146
0
Somewhere in Alabama
Photozone.de just put up a review of the Sigma 24-70mm HSM (w/ the D3x). It didn't look like they were too impressed. I'd just pick up a couple of primes in that range or save up and buy the Nikon version on down the road.
 

kingbee

Monkey
Mar 29, 2004
902
0
Ohio
Thanks, that was a good review. Looks like it did better on the DX camera than the FX. I could live with its faults but he bokeh is what worries me.