Find myself needing a tele zoom (80-200mm) increasingly, especially at events where my standard zoom isn’t sufficient. Often work indoors, so as fast a lens as possible means the choice is limited to an f2.8 zoom. Which leaves me with a few choices. From the Nikkor 80-200mm f2.8D, right up to the latest 70-200mm VR3. I’ve found a mint example of the former, for an excellent price (I seem to have a knack for finding near-mint lenses for great prices!), and the latest zoom is something like £2650 new! 😯 Lots of s/h versions for a lot less though. The AF-D lens is very highly rated, very well made, and by all accounts, and excellent lens. However, it lacks the VR of later models, which is very useful in low light. I did use to use an old manual focus 80-200m f4 lens without too many issues though.

I know there’s a few Nikon users on here, so wondering about thoughts on the various zooms. Good? Bad? Avoid? Worth spending 3x or more for one of the more recent models?

I have the 70-200mm f2.8 VR2 and it is a superb piece of glass, my most used lens by far. The VR3 doesn’t really seem that much better, a bit lighter, but not worth upgrading. VR2 is excellent, I only ever use it hand held and have never had a blurred shot from hand movement. It’s a bit heavy, but then so is the D4S body. My record is three back to back hockey matches, which is about 4.5 hours of holding it up continually.

Can you compare it to a non-VR lens? The AF-D lens is immaculate, as good as new, and comparatively very cheap. And optically, apparently as good as anything else, virtually. I like it because it feels a lot better made than the later versions, plus there’s a lot less to go wrong (internal AF motors, VR mechanisms etc).

And VR versions; the VR1 is significantly cheaper than a VR2 (although prices of the latter may drop now the VR3 is available). Is it significant;y ‘worse’? I can’t justify buying a new VR3; it’s not so much the price, it’s more about why spend so much if you don’t have to? S/H VR2 prices don’t seem to be great compared with the new price.

There are some older AF-S models about, which can be had relatively cheaply, but I can’t see how they offer a significant advantage over the AF-D. I don’t do sports so don’t need ultra-fast AF (more down to the camera body anyway). And I’ve read that certain models weren’t great optically, which is the prime consideration really.

Can you compare it to a non-VR lens?

Not really as I don’t have a non-VR 200mm…

The build quality is superb, so I expect a 2nd hand VR-2 or VR-1 to be a good investment. Possibly try them out in somewhere like London Camera Exchange, and take some test shots and compare?

I think I paid £1750 new for my VR-2 5-6 years ago….

The Sigma offering is £729 new and the Tamron is £1099

http://www.jessops.com/online.store/categories/products/sigma/70-200mm-f2-8-dg-os-lens-for-nikon-afd-77930/show.html

http://www.jessops.com/online.store/categories/Cameras%20and%20Lenses/Lenses/products/Sigma/180mm%20f2.8%20APO%20Macro%20EX%20DG%20OS%20HSM%20Lens%20for%20Nikon-90749/Show.html

Pretty sure they are well enough regarded (and obvs a good bit cheaper). They’ll also be available 2ndhand.

I’ve the Sigma – couldn’t justify the extra cost of the Nikkor – and very happy with it. One problem and it’s very much an edge case: when the temperature gets near freezing the autofocus doesn’t work on my camera body. Put the lens on a friend’s camera and it’s fine, put his Sigma zoom on my camera and that’s fine. I think both the camera and lens are at the opposite ends of their respective tolerances and when they cool down the motor contacts fail.

IIRC the Nikkor has a silent wave motor in the lens, so doesn’t use the body motor.

“Possibly try them out in somewhere like London Camera Exchange, and take some test shots and compare?”

Funny you should say that… 🙂

“I think I paid £1750 new for my VR-2 5-6 years ago….”

They’re still around that mark. S/h examples tend to range between £1200-1400. The VR1 model, about £800-1100. The AF-D is significantly cheaper than that though.

Sigma etc; not had great results with 3rd party manufacturers lenses, so much prefer Nikkors. Willing to look at others, but with zooms especially, I’ve found other brands can’t really touch the quality produced using Nikkor lenses. Sorry if that seems a bit ‘brand snobbish’.

They’re still around that mark. S/h examples tend to range between £1200-1400

Well I’ve taken maybe 100k shots with mine in all weathers and it still looks brand new, bar paint rubbing off on the tripod mount, which I hold in the palm of my hand when shooting. So, they last for ever if looked after.

I have a friend who is selling a Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR2 if you are interested?

Its in good condition, shows signs of use but glass is clean and lens is fully functional. He’s looking for around £1100.

email in profile if interested.

Owner of an 80-200mm AF-D and a 70-200mm VR MkII. The 70-200mm is better, how much better is down to the camera. On my D3s (12MP) the difference isn’t huge, but is still visible, on my D810 it’s very obvious – 36MP shows up flaws quickly.
VR is great below approx 160th of a sec but doesn’t count for much with a higher shutter speed. Very handy for pan shots.

Selling my 80-200mm as it’s now surplus to requirements…

I went through similar thought process a few years ago. Decided couldn’t/wouldn’t pay for new models or a new lens. Was delighted and lucky to find on Ffordes a mint 80-200 AFD for £600. It was so mint I suspect it just sat in its bag in a case forever and never saw a camera… I absolutely love this lens. I can’t fault it. The focus is fast. Some amount of bang for the buck.

And to be fair I’ve never used a ‘proper’ VR telephoto but I don’t feel like I’m missing it on this lens.

“I have a friend who is selling a Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR2 if you are interested?”

Could well be! Email sent.

“Owner of an 80-200mm AF-D and a 70-200mm VR MkII. The 70-200mm is better, how much better is down to the camera. On my D3s (12MP) the difference isn’t huge, but is still visible, on my D810 it’s very obvious – 36MP shows up flaws quickly.”

Very interesting, Sim. How are the differences manifest?

“Was delighted and lucky to find on Ffordes a mint 80-200 AFD for £600. It was so mint I suspect it just sat in its bag in a case forever and never saw a camera”

Found one similar, for a good bit less than that. I think some people by things and never use them. Bought a few lenses like that. Can’t understand why yo’d never uses something; my equipment gets regular use, and although I’m very careful to look after it all, it still shows signs of use.