Anybody selling a Nikon 80 - 200mm f2.8?
Discussion
I've been using a 70 - 200mm VR f2.8 for a year now and had nothing but bother with it when taking motorsport shots so its now been sold!
My friend uses the 80 - 200 AF-S f2.8 and he gets great shots with it and so do I when he gives me a go of it.
So i am looking to purchase one of these but they are like hens teeth, been searching ebay for days.
Does anybody have one for sale?? Must be in near mint condition and be the af-s version, cash waiting!
Thanks.
Colin
My friend uses the 80 - 200 AF-S f2.8 and he gets great shots with it and so do I when he gives me a go of it.
So i am looking to purchase one of these but they are like hens teeth, been searching ebay for days.
Does anybody have one for sale?? Must be in near mint condition and be the af-s version, cash waiting!
Thanks.
Colin
What have you been finding it does wrong? I know another chap who had one on and sold it for similar reasons, and is much happier with his 300 quid xx to 300mm lense.
I've got a 70-200 and took my first few pics of moving cars at a trackday yesterday. Be interesting to see how they come out. Expectations are low as I only had 5 minutes and didn't really experiment. Got a horrible feeling I used to wide an aperture...
I've got a 70-200 and took my first few pics of moving cars at a trackday yesterday. Be interesting to see how they come out. Expectations are low as I only had 5 minutes and didn't really experiment. Got a horrible feeling I used to wide an aperture...
Well, I've developed my photos, although not really spent any time sharpening or playing with lightroom defaults. They seem ok. I only spent 10 mins taking photos and all were at f4 so shutter speeds were high - I wasn't trying to pan, just capture my mates.
Be interesting to see if you think they are softer than should be expected and how they compare to your results? I had VR on too and a few in the gallery are a little out of focus but I put them in for the cars owners in case they wanted them anyway...
http://danh.smugmug.com/gallery/4356002_6ewG9/3/255656466_MdNW6#P-1-28
Think my favourite shots are the line of cars with my RS sticking out, and the 350Z driver looking at me.
p.s. These have been resized by smugmug which doesn't help them, and also PH image size limit, but I'm not redoing all the links to lower sized versions as they are tiny next size down...
Be interesting to see if you think they are softer than should be expected and how they compare to your results? I had VR on too and a few in the gallery are a little out of focus but I put them in for the cars owners in case they wanted them anyway...
http://danh.smugmug.com/gallery/4356002_6ewG9/3/255656466_MdNW6#P-1-28
Think my favourite shots are the line of cars with my RS sticking out, and the 350Z driver looking at me.
p.s. These have been resized by smugmug which doesn't help them, and also PH image size limit, but I'm not redoing all the links to lower sized versions as they are tiny next size down...
Edited by DanH on Monday 18th February 01:06
DanH,
Try reducing your shutter speed when panning to get some motion blur, it looks like you have it set too high making the cars look a bit static, apart from that some good pics.
It was mainly focusing problems with the VR lens, was binning more pics than keeping. Never used the VR either as it tended to make it worse, i sent the lens away to nikon thinking it was knackered but they tested and cleaned it and said it was fine.
Sold it now so hoping to get the 80 - 200 and with whats left over will pay for a some of the 300mm f4 lens I have just bought!...and the D300 I bought also!
Col.
Try reducing your shutter speed when panning to get some motion blur, it looks like you have it set too high making the cars look a bit static, apart from that some good pics.
It was mainly focusing problems with the VR lens, was binning more pics than keeping. Never used the VR either as it tended to make it worse, i sent the lens away to nikon thinking it was knackered but they tested and cleaned it and said it was fine.
Sold it now so hoping to get the 80 - 200 and with whats left over will pay for a some of the 300mm f4 lens I have just bought!...and the D300 I bought also!
Col.
Col 666 said:
It was mainly focusing problems with the VR lens, was binning more pics than keeping.
i sent the lens away to nikon thinking it was knackered but they tested and cleaned it and said it was fine.
THis exact thing happened to another forum member, and it turned out to be because of a low quality UV filter on the lens. i sent the lens away to nikon thinking it was knackered but they tested and cleaned it and said it was fine.
_dobbo_ said:
Col 666 said:
It was mainly focusing problems with the VR lens, was binning more pics than keeping.
i sent the lens away to nikon thinking it was knackered but they tested and cleaned it and said it was fine.
THis exact thing happened to another forum member, and it turned out to be because of a low quality UV filter on the lens. i sent the lens away to nikon thinking it was knackered but they tested and cleaned it and said it was fine.
Col 666 said:
DanH,
Try reducing your shutter speed when panning to get some motion blur, it looks like you have it set too high making the cars look a bit static, apart from that some good pics.
It was mainly focusing problems with the VR lens, was binning more pics than keeping. Never used the VR either as it tended to make it worse, i sent the lens away to nikon thinking it was knackered but they tested and cleaned it and said it was fine.
Sold it now so hoping to get the 80 - 200 and with whats left over will pay for a some of the 300mm f4 lens I have just bought!...and the D300 I bought also!
Col.
I know they were fast shutter Try reducing your shutter speed when panning to get some motion blur, it looks like you have it set too high making the cars look a bit static, apart from that some good pics.
It was mainly focusing problems with the VR lens, was binning more pics than keeping. Never used the VR either as it tended to make it worse, i sent the lens away to nikon thinking it was knackered but they tested and cleaned it and said it was fine.
Sold it now so hoping to get the 80 - 200 and with whats left over will pay for a some of the 300mm f4 lens I have just bought!...and the D300 I bought also!
Col.
- I mentioned it at the top To be honest I was trying to do the depth of field I wanted as a priority and only had 10 mins so wasn't messing about as I had multiple cars I needed to capture and no down time to try new techniques. Suspect what I really need is a few ND filters to give me slower shutter but allow f4 which seems ok in these pics. Did you look at my high res shots in the gallery? I thought focussing was generally pretty ok. Was using continuous mode, 9 focus point.Twas me with the 70-200 VR issues and afaik it was down to a poor quality UV filter. Nikon had it twice and said after the 2nd time that it was exceeding their benchmark in terms of sharpness etc.
I felt that the expensive lenses with VR just required a certain type of user which I was not. Maybe lack of experience, maybe just different tecnique.
I sold the 70-200 VR to a hopefully very happy new owner and bought a 70-300 VR which I personally find easier to use, easier to carry about and sharper than the 70-200 which it replaced.
I don't know why, horses for corses I guess.
I did suggest Dan that you tried the 70-300 at £379 before spanking £10000 on the 70-200 VR as, with respect, being your first camera I very much doubt you'd notice the difference. In fact, I think, like me, you'd prefer the 70-300.
G
I felt that the expensive lenses with VR just required a certain type of user which I was not. Maybe lack of experience, maybe just different tecnique.
I sold the 70-200 VR to a hopefully very happy new owner and bought a 70-300 VR which I personally find easier to use, easier to carry about and sharper than the 70-200 which it replaced.
I don't know why, horses for corses I guess.
I did suggest Dan that you tried the 70-300 at £379 before spanking £10000 on the 70-200 VR as, with respect, being your first camera I very much doubt you'd notice the difference. In fact, I think, like me, you'd prefer the 70-300.
G
Mr Noble said:
Twas me with the 70-200 VR issues and afaik it was down to a poor quality UV filter. Nikon had it twice and said after the 2nd time that it was exceeding their benchmark in terms of sharpness etc.
I felt that the expensive lenses with VR just required a certain type of user which I was not. Maybe lack of experience, maybe just different tecnique.
I sold the 70-200 VR to a hopefully very happy new owner and bought a 70-300 VR which I personally find easier to use, easier to carry about and sharper than the 70-200 which it replaced.
I don't know why, horses for corses I guess.
I did suggest Dan that you tried the 70-300 at £379 before spanking £10000 on the 70-200 VR as, with respect, being your first camera I very much doubt you'd notice the difference. In fact, I think, like me, you'd prefer the 70-300.
G
Well go on then, posts your pics from Saturday. Lets see if we can see the difference in quality! Put your money where you mouth is boyo I felt that the expensive lenses with VR just required a certain type of user which I was not. Maybe lack of experience, maybe just different tecnique.
I sold the 70-200 VR to a hopefully very happy new owner and bought a 70-300 VR which I personally find easier to use, easier to carry about and sharper than the 70-200 which it replaced.
I don't know why, horses for corses I guess.
I did suggest Dan that you tried the 70-300 at £379 before spanking £10000 on the 70-200 VR as, with respect, being your first camera I very much doubt you'd notice the difference. In fact, I think, like me, you'd prefer the 70-300.
G
You can see full res version of mine in the gallery linked at the top of my first message.
Have you considered the Sigma HSM version? A lot cheaper than the AF-s, still good focus speed, and sorts my main gripe with the type which is the minimum focus distance.
I have an older AF-D (one touch version!) that is great in terms of sharpness and speed, but the min focus hacks me off (usually travel photography where one subjects tend to move in close very quickly), and the speed (body driven) is poor, esp. with a TC on. Sigma doesn't seem too far behind on sharpness and is ALOT cheaper.
I have an older AF-D (one touch version!) that is great in terms of sharpness and speed, but the min focus hacks me off (usually travel photography where one subjects tend to move in close very quickly), and the speed (body driven) is poor, esp. with a TC on. Sigma doesn't seem too far behind on sharpness and is ALOT cheaper.
I used to have the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 HSM, changed to a Nikon 80-200 AF-D because I couldn't get along with the Sigma at all. Although the 80-200 I have is only the AF-D I could count the number of times is has let me down by not focusing quick enough on one hand. I purchased it from DigitalRev, it was shipped back from Hong Kong to the UK in four days. It had been on 5 separate flights and arrived in perfect condition. I would recommend the lens and DigitalRev. I would post some example shots but I am at work and my work PC kindly blocks Zenfolio and Photobucket. Some examples here.
Mr Noble said:
... before spanking £10000 on the 70-200 VR ...
No - think you mean 1,100 of our fine British quids. Phew!!!
Actually, Grays had an 80-200 AF-S not so long ago, maybe a month - I was considering going for it. Needless to say it was priced between the current AFD 80-200s they are advertising (quite fairly priced, I reckon) and the shockingly expensive 70-200 in Tropical!
Edited by beano500 on Monday 18th February 20:39
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff