80-200 AF-S lens for D70?

[agriffiths]

I'm looking to get an 80-200mm AF-S lens for my D70 and was wondering if anyone new of any compatability issues?
I heard somewhere that someone (vague I know) had a focusing problem with the D70/80-200 AF-S combination.

[MHD]

None what so ever..
As the D70 has the Cam-900 AF system it will not focus as fast as a camera with the CAM-2000 system..

But many have used this lens with much success!

[MHD]

oh and WELCOME!

[agriffiths]

Thanks for you advise MHD,
I'm just about to head out now to pick the lens up. Do you think $1,600 is a reasonable price to pay (second hand) and, besides fungus, are there any warning signs that I should look for?
This forum's goin' straight to the pool room!

[MHD]

Not the best IMHO...

I know some one here on this board who can get a new one cheaper than that...

Post some more... put up some images, and you will get access to the Bargains section... I STRONGLY recommend you put off your purchase until then

(eh guys? )

$1600 is too much

[xerubus]

welcome to the forums.

the 80-200 is a very fine lens. as mhd has said though, 1600 is far too much.

cheers

[agriffiths]

What do you guys think would be a reasoanble offer for the AF-S?

[xerubus]

I think $1000 would be a good deal.

[shutterbug]

Can you still get this lens new? there is 2 version of 80-200 f2.8.
One is AF-D and AF-S. I understan dthe AF-S is mor eexpensive than the AF-D.

[agriffiths]

Yeah I've seen the AF-D version second hand for $900. The best price on that I could find on the net for the AF-S version was just over $2,000 brand new.

[shutterbug]

If you are willing to pay $1600, add a couple of hundred and get the
70-200 VR

[MCWB]

...and for a bit more than that you can have a brand new 70-200 VR. Food for thought! I'd be aiming around the $900-1000 mark.

Edit: snap!

[agriffiths]

Is there anywhere in Melboune that I can get the 70-200 VR for that price?

[agriffiths]

Hmm, it was worth a try... I offered him $1,000. He just laughed and said that Camera Exchange offered him more than that
Maybe I aimed too low? But hey if someone can point me in the direction of a 70-200VR then BRIING IT ON!

[agriffiths]

ok I called back again (this guy must be sick of me by now) and offered him $1,300. Turns out this is the exact same amount that Camera Exchange offered. I tried to negotiate down from $1,600 but he wouldn't budge. Says he payed $2,000 1 year ago, has used it twice and did not want to take anything less than $1,600.
I give up!

[xerubus]

my advice would be not to buy it at that price... save a couple more pennies and get the 70-200vr ...

[agriffiths]

Cool, thanks for your help guys
Can you point me in the direction of a 70-200VR?

[xerubus]

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/control ... 80&is=GREY

[Glen]

A Griffiths the AFS lens is good but he is pretty much full tilt on his pricing. How much are you wanting to spend? A bit over $2k will get you a new 70-200 VR, I just sold a s/h 80-200 (non AFS) for $600. Which direction would you like to go pricewise?

[kipper]

Agriffith, I have just purchased the 70-200VR F2.8 IF ED from Birddog for $600 more than that lense and it's way better than that one you just mentioned. Tell the clown he's dreaming if he thinks he can get $1.6k for it. It doesn't even have VR, geez. I've used zooms without VR before handheld and you get really shit images. I'll post some of my shots with the VR this weekend. Just slow things down a bit and don't rush into buying a lense when you're spending this much. Think about it. I waited like 3 months before I got mine. I wanted to buy it when I was in the UK but I just waited.

[Hybrid]

All these lenses have their pros and cons...

In the case of the 70-200VR, the only real con seems to be the price. On the 80-200 AFS you are getting the same quality and fast, slient focusing as with the 70-200 VR. If you NEED fast focusing (e.g for sports action) but will mainly be using the lens in good light then you might not actually need the VR and can save yourself some money (about $600?).

The older AF-D 80-200's are also very good... Focus is not as fast but it is not that bad either from what I've read. You can pick one up for a pretty reasonable price.

I've done a lot of research on this and have pretty much decided on the 70-200VR. Yes, it is expensive but the fast focus speed and VR suit my style (I don't like being attached to a tripod if possible).

Check the DPReview.com forums - this topic is discussed all the time...

Good luck,

Stephen

[birddog114]

All these lenses have their pros and cons...

In the case of the 70-200VR, the only real con seems to be the price. On the 80-200 AFS you are getting the same quality and fast, slient focusing as with the 70-200 VR. If you NEED fast focusing (e.g for sports action) but will mainly be using the lens in good light then you might not actually need the VR and can save yourself some money (about $600?).

The older AF-D 80-200's are also very good... Focus is not as fast but it is not that bad either from what I've read. You can pick one up for a pretty reasonable price.

I've done a lot of research on this and have pretty much decided on the 70-200VR. Yes, it is expensive but the fast focus speed and VR suit my style (I don't like being attached to a tripod if possible).

Check the DPReview.com forums - this topic is discussed all the time...

Good luck,

Stephen

The 70-200VR with VR is not only for low light but for handholding with stabilizer if you have a shaken hand, the 80-200AF-S is the old version and replaced by the 70-200VR, it's more flexibilty if you don't have a tripod or monopod with you.
For the few hundred dollars the 70-200VR is a win win case.

[Hybrid]

The 70-200VR with VR is not only for low light but for handholding with stabilizer if you have a shaken hand, the 80-200AF-S is the old version and replaced by the 70-200VR, it's mor flexibilty if you don't have a tripod or monopod with you.
Foe the few hundred dollars the 70-200VR is a win win case.

When I said that VR might not be needed, I was really meaning for fast shutter speeds like 1/500s and faster... I should've been more specific...

Don't worry Birddog, I'm sold on the 70-200VR already

Stephen

[MCWB]

I've used zooms without VR before handheld and you get really shit images.

Not wanting to single you out kipper, but that's a pretty awful generalisation! With VR you get a larger range of useable shutter speeds on the lower end (which is mucho handy, I agree), but the 80-200 2.8 in its various incarnations is also a very good lens. Not at $1600 though.

I just picked up a push-pull 80-200 2.8 for $600 (about the going rate) and am happy with it. It's no 70-200 VR, but it's fast, sharp and IMO good bang for buck.

[ultravista]

Just bought the 70-200VR and selling the 80-200 AF-S. I'm in the US though ... email if interested.

[Matt. K]

MCWB
I use one them push/pull 80-200 thingos and they are excellent. All you have to do is hold the damn thing still.

[birddog114]

MCWB
I use one them push/pull 80-200 thingos and they are excellent. All you have to do is hold the damn thing still.

Or super glued it onto the real hard muscle!

[kipper]

MCWB perhaps it's just my really limited use of lenses other than the 70-200VR. The only other zoom lenses I've used are the Nikkor 70-300G and the Sigma 70-300 APO Super Macro. While they're not bad lenses when you have lots and lots of light at full focal length. I found lots of time I was at widest aperture, and still having to drop the shutter speed below the 1/focal length rule of thumb. Which usually resulted in not so sharp images. However this 80-200 F/2.8 AF-S might be quite good for taking sharp shots handheld. Not sure, because I haven't played

[birddog114]

kipper,
He got the earlier version of AF-D 80-200 not the new AF-S 80-200.

[Glen]

MCWB, that is a very good lens, I would buy one for $600 and in fact did last year. As I have said many times, half the images we viewed in papers and magazines during the 80's and half the 90's were probably shot with that lens

[stubbsy]

agriffiths

I'm with the other comments here that the 70-200 VR (with or without the TC 1.7, depending on your budget) is a better buy. The 70-200 is fast to focus, performs well in low light and has the most beautiful bokeh. Then there's the VR. My tall ships shots were mostly taken with that lens - see them here and here for examples of just how well it can perform. These shots were all taken hand held on a ship that bobbed around all over the shop. The VR compensated beautifully.

And the shot below shows the sharpness and the bokeh. Hand held and about 3 metres from the subject.

[agriffiths]

Wow, I wish I had listened to you guys first! Those 70-200 images are brilliant!!
Unfortunately for me my eagerness got the better of me and I tried to bargain with the guy.... I ended up buying the 80-200 for $1,400. I figured that if worst came to worst I could always trade it in for $1,300 as offered by Camera Exchange and only lose $100.
Although I feel kinda jibbed on the price I was pretty excited to pick it up and head down the Great Ocean Rd to Lorne for a weekend of Surf Patrol.
My main reason for getting the lens ASAP was becuase it was our last official patrol for the season and I wanted to get some photos of our team in action. The waves that I was hoping for never really made an appearance until high tide late on Sunday afternoon. As the tide came in, so did a few small sets so I reluctantly handed my camerea to a fellow patrol member and headed out into the surf.
By this stage the sun was still fairly bright and I was able to set the camera up for a fast shutter speed, so no need for a tripod.
Here are a couple of the shots....







Once again, thanks for all your help with this. I'll be visiting this forum regularly from now on!

[agriffiths]

Not quite sure why the second and thrid pics didn't post so well. They should be sharper and larger than that. I'll have to look into this picture attachment method.

[sirhc55]

You have a great lens there - the first shot is amazing - sharp and caught the action well

[birddog114]

It's nice lens btw, trade it in for less $100.00 and buy the 70-200VR from them for $3300.00, I think you have good thoughts.

[stubbsy]

agriffiths

The first shot's a corker. Did someone tell that guy he was supposed to be inside the boat

[agriffiths]

he he, yeah that's my mate Jack. His job as crew is to hold the boat straight until the driver (me) tells him to get in. He was sure to thank me for that one afterwards!

[MCWB]

My main reason for getting the lens ASAP was becuase it was our last official patrol for the season and I wanted to get some photos of our team in action.

More than fair enough IMHO, you can't put a price on those photos! Great shots!

[Matt. K]

Your images are a perfect example of a high quality lens being used by someone who is skilled. No need to upgrade to anything....learn to use what you have and your images will be as good as anybody else's regardless of the lens they have.