Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 ED AF-D - Focus Fast Enough for outdoor sports?

[danpak]

Out of 4 - 5 versions of this lens, I am interested in getting this version with two rings and tripod collar. I would mostly use it for fast outdoor sports - ultimate frisbee. I know the IQ is excellent. However, I am concerned about the focus speed. :scratch I have a D50, which also may contribute to the focus speed.


I'd like to hear from you who have this lens.

Thanks in advance for your response.

[ziggy53]

If you can't afford either the Nikkor AF-S VR, 70-200mm, f/2.8G IF-ED or the (older) Nikkor 80-200mm, f/2.8D ED-IF AF-S, then the Nikkor 80-200mm, f/2.8D ED (commonly called the Nikkor 80-200mm, AF-D) is as good as it gets. (I hope I got all that correct.)

Yes, it is commonly used for sports photography and I used to shoot alongside one for HS football.

The Nikon D50 body might be more limiting than the lens in that the D50 has fairly simple "5 Area" autofocus, but it does have an AF tracking capability. I think you'll just have to try it to see if the system keeps up to your satisfaction.

[HarveyMushman]

Out of 4 - 5 versions of this lens, I am interested in getting this version with two rings and tripod collar. I would mostly use it for fast outdoor sports - ultimate frisbee. I know the IQ is excellent. However, I am concerned about the focus speed. :scratch I have a D50, which also may contribute to the focus speed.


I'd like to hear from you who have this lens.

Thanks in advance for your response.

It will be reasonably quick on the D50, certainly quicker than any consumer zoom you might use. But it won't be as quick on your D50 as it would be on a pro body, because the D50's AF system doesn't process as fast and because it doesn't have the motor-muscle to turn that little screw as quickly as a D2H/D2X/D3 would.

[kini62]

For a similar if not less money you might want to try the Sigma 70-200/2.8. It has HSM focussing so it focusses as fast or nearly as fast as Nikon's SWM or Canon's USM lenses.

Gene

[Seymore]

If you can't afford either the Nikkor AF-S VR, 70-200mm, f/2.8G IF-ED or the (older) Nikkor 80-200mm, f/2.8D ED-IF AF-S, then the Nikkor 80-200mm, f/2.8D ED (commonly called the Nikkor 80-200mm, AF-D) is as good as it gets. (I hope I got all that correct.)
Yep, nailed it there Ziggy...


I have shot with the AF-D version, currently own an AFS copy and I'd think you should have no issues with either in the sporting world. My only concern would be tracking a small moving Frisbee, if this is what you'll be attempting to do. You may find that the camera hunting for focus in this respect, no matter the lens.

BTW, the AFS copy is no longer sold new. But the AF-D can still be had new (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/124669-USA/Nikon_1986_80_200mm_f_2_8_ED_AF_D.html) or used for ~$650-900+.

[danpak]

Thanks very much for all your input!

I think I'm going to get a gently used one. Hopefully this will work for me.

[Mike02]

Out of 4 - 5 versions of this lens, I am interested in getting this version with two rings and tripod collar. I would mostly use it for fast outdoor sports - ultimate frisbee. I know the IQ is excellent. However, I am concerned about the focus speed. :scratch I have a D50, which also may contribute to the focus speed.


I'd like to hear from you who have this lens.

Thanks in advance for your response.

It really depends how you want to use it.

If one, youre working for a professional newspaper, or two, sports magazine, then you'll know if its fast enough for you before you even buy it.

2. If you're just using this for personal use, does it really matter how fast it is? As long as you're having fun shooting, you dont really need the 1600$ lens that focuses faster now do you? UNless you have 1600 to spend, then go crazy.:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:barb:barb:bar b:ivar:ivar:ivar:rolleyes:lust:rofl

ps. i read its for outdoor frisbee. why the beep do you want an f/2.8 lens? buy a 70-300 and you'll be happy. gosh. of all the silly questions on these forums ;/.

[jonh68]

I have the D50 and that lens. You can get a 80-200 f 2.8 used for around $500.00. It's not quick, but it's fast enough. With the money you save by getting a used one over a Sigma, you can put that money towards getting a body that can drive the lens better down the road. I like how small it is compared to other lenses in this class.

I shot these with the D50 and the 80-200.

http://jonh68.smugmug.com/photos/246019287_F8MMy-M.jpg

http://jonh68.smugmug.com/photos/246018832_6TcWd-L.jpg

http://jonh68.smugmug.com/photos/246013955_FG9jj-L.jpg

[danpak]

Thanks very much for your response and pics. The pics look great! I'm encouraged.

Question for you.. I see that you have 18-200vr in your arsenal. Did you ever compare the focus speed on your D50 with 18-200 vs. 80-200?

Thanks!

I have the D50 and that lens. You can get a 80-200 f 2.8 used for around $500.00. It's not quick, but it's fast enough. With the money you save by getting a used one over a Sigma, you can put that money towards getting a body that can drive the lens better down the road. I like how small it is compared to other lenses in this class.

I shot these with the D50 and the 80-200.

http://jonh68.smugmug.com/photos/246019287_F8MMy-M.jpg

http://jonh68.smugmug.com/photos/246018832_6TcWd-L.jpg

http://jonh68.smugmug.com/photos/246013955_FG9jj-L.jpg

[jonh68]

The 18-200 is faster and I have used it for sports as well. DOF is not as good with the 18-200, but only experienced photogs notice. For outdoor sports with good light, the speed of 2.8 vs the 18-200 is not an issue, it just becomes more of personal taste.

If I were to going to shoot strictly for sports, I would use the 80-200. If you already have the 18-200, the decision to get the 80-200 should be based on making better looking images as they both will capture the same picture. The AF is slower, but I am not frustrated with it. If you don't have the 18-200 and are thinking of getting it, I wouldn't hesistate to use it either and you will have a more rounded lens, although you sacrifice some image quality.

Here's a shot with the 18-200.

http://jonh68.smugmug.com/photos/139989091_ZzezY-L.jpg

[danpak]

John,

Thanks for your input. Much appreciated. I am now in the process of transitioning my gear to the pro grade. I just bought 17-55 2.8. I just sold 18-200vr to get this lens. While 18-200 worked OK, I wanted some improve ment in the IQ, such as blurred background to isolate the action etc. I am planning to upgrade current D50 to something better in the near future.

Thanks again!

[HarveyMushman]

John,

Thanks for your input. Much appreciated. I am now in the process of transitioning my gear to the pro grade. I just bought 17-55 2.8. I just sold 18-200vr to get this lens. While 18-200 worked OK, I wanted some improve ment in the IQ, such as blurred background to isolate the action etc. I am planning to upgrade current D50 to something better in the near future.

Thanks again!

Do you need the zoom range of the 80-200? How close to the action are you able to stand? Will you be shooting at 200mm all the time? I ask because the AF-D 300 f/4 can be had (used) for roughly the same amount of money as a AF-D 80-200. Might be worth considering, might not. :D

I have the current AF-S version of the 300 f/4 and love it. I think it actually focuses faster than my 70-200/2.8.