|
Articles and Reviews
|
Home >> Photography >> Film Equipment Nikkor
80-200mm f/2.8D AF-ED
This lens has to be up for one of the sexiest in all of photography (and I mean versions made by all the major companies). Big and heavy and as Phillip Greenspun might say, " A good remedy for the penile deficient." Put a dedicated lens hood on this lens and it becomes an immediate attention grabber out in public. You get instant credibility as a serious photographer and to be quite honest, I don’t think anyone can call oneself a serious photographer without this particular class of lens. For this last point, it is not about size, weight or vicarious Lilliputian penile substitution. It is about image quality. In this one rather large-ist package we have the ability to replace four lenses (80mm, 105mm, 135mm, 180mm/200mm) for a price far lower then what it would cost to have all four lenses (even if comparing the new AF-S version) with only minimal theoretical loss of resolution. In real world applications, it isn’t likely that the loss of quality would be detectable. Even David Reuther, a Nikkor sharpness nut, likes this zoom lens based upon comments from his review of the two-ring, tripod mount, non-Silent Wave version. My particular sample is a third-generation version (out of five generations; 1) the original one ring, manual focus, tripod mount version; 2) the autofocus, non-D, no tripod mount version; 3) the AF-D, no tripod mount version [mine]; 4) the two-ring, AF-D, tripod mount; and 5) the AF-S D, tripod mount version. I bought my lens second-hand as a consignment sale from my regular hangout, Broadway Camera. The fellow selling it was off-loading his Nikon gear because he had just bought into Contax equipment. I’m quite certain that I could have bought the same version of the lens from a private sale in the local Buy&Sell paper but I paid the extra money to buy from the store because the lens was in immaculate condition. No marks on it whatsoever, a definite 10 scale lens. As much as I paid for it, I still saved about $500 from not buying the newer two-ring tripod version of the lens. In hindsight, I think I should have bought the new version given what I paid to buy a tripod bracket for the lens later on. More on that later on. From all that I can glean from the various Nikon books I have and the postings of various users of this lens on the newsgroups, the first three AF versions of this lens are the same optically. The new AF-S version is a whole new design optically and is modestly bigger and heavier then the older ones. It also has a removable tripod mount. The original two AF versions would seem to be marketed to photojournalists and not the nature photographer. The lack of a tripod mount and the one touch focus/zoom would seem ideal for such quick applications as photojournalism or wedding photography. The one downside to these applications would be the slow AF speed of the lens. Phillip Greenspun detested the AF with his F801 body. I have similar feelings when I use my lens with my F70 body. According to one Nikon Mailing List post, the F70’s AF is based upon the F801 so I guess I can’t be too surprised about the performance of the lens and body combination. The AF with my F90x is much better and I find it satisfactory for most of my applications. With landscapes, AF speed isn’t and shouldn’t be an issue. The lens itself is about 8.5" long and weighs about 2lbs. A dedicated lens hood, the HB-7, is available and adds two more inches to the lens when in place. The lens hood is a bayonet type that can be reversed onto the lens for storage purposes. This lens hood is another outdated style wherein it is only effective for the short range of the zoom lens. Nikon could and should come out with a new scalloped hood for this lens. There is a small silver button near the base of the lens but above the aperture ring that will switch the lens from AF to manual focusing. I hate the button and I’ll explain why further on. Near the front of the lens beside the distance indication window is a slide switch to limit the focusing of the lens for certain distances. I don’t use the limit switch at all. The lens is solid and is finished in a flat black, crinkle texture. Though large and weighty, the lens fits nicely in the cradle of my left hand. Although the lens would seem ideally suited for handheld photography, care must be taken to ensure sharp images, especially at the long end of the zoom range. I’ve been careless at times with the shutter speed when using the lens with flash and have received very soft images for my laziness. When I shoot in Aperture Priority mode with flash indoors, the camera automatically defaults to 1/60 second unless confronted by very bright ambient conditions. If I’m very careful and use the technique taught to me during my Army Reserve training on how to shoot a rifle properly, I can obtain acceptable results at such a slow shutter speed at the long end of the zoom. That is, take a breath before releasing the shutter and then as you release the shutter, exhale (also usable whenever you have the camera on a tripod or beanbag but don’t have a remote or cable release). If I just shoot without proper technique then I get images that are far too soft even on small 4x6 prints. On some occasions the camera shake can be so bad that the prints end up in the trash. For landscapes, you must obviously always use a tripod with a cable release if you want any type of usable results. I’ve probably mentioned the size and weight of this lens enough times to either scare people about it or have them think that I’ve got some kind of Freudian phallic preoccupation with it (and no, my penis is not small). The size and weight does present problems though when trying to obtain the best results with this lens out in the field. If you have the bucks, then go out and buy a new one with a tripod mount and don’t worry, be happy. If you don’t have the bucks to throw your older, non-tripod mount unit in the backup equipment box then you only have two choices that I know of to keep your camera body’s lens mount from warping (theoretically). Buy a special bracket made by F&L or Kirk Enterprise. I was going to buy an F&L bracket after reading Moose Peterson’s review of it on his website. I called up B&H to order it but unfortunately, they were out of stock and it was going to take them some time to get new units in. I then called up Kirk Enterprise and ordered their version of the bracket called the EZ-360. Kirk Enterprise actually has two types of brackets for the lens. One is simply called the Quick Release mount and the other the EZ-360. The EZ-360 is $45 US more then the Quick Release unit and for my use, is far more versatile and worth the extra cost.
The Quick Release bracket has to be mounted not only to the lens but also to the camera body and would present potential problems when trying to do vertical shots mounted on a tripod. The EZ-360 attaches only to the lens and allows a full 360-degree rotation of the lens and body while the bracket remains stationary on the tripod. It’s the cat’s meow when doing verticals in a quick and easy fashion. The EZ-360 does present users with a couple of minor inconveniences though. The way the bracket must attach to the lens, at the front and base, it prevents you from attaching the lens hood reversed for storage purposes. You must either take the hood off and store it elsewhere or rearrange your camera bag to accommodate the longer lens. The lens is also about ½lb heavier with the bracket attached. This makes hand holding the lens a bit tricky with the extra weight and bulk. The bracket’s base ring also makes it difficult to switch the lens from AF to manual focus mode. There are two rings that must be attached to the lens at its base. The first one is secured via tiny hex screws and remains stationary on the lens (the single front ring is also secured via hex screws but not so tiny). The second ring goes over this first ring and remains stationary when mounted on a tripod. The rotating action is done between these two rings. A base plate connects the rear ring to the single front ring. This base plate is grooved for an Acra Swiss quick release platform (very nice indeed). The lens requires the user to press and hold down a very small button while rotating the rear part of the lens to switch focusing modes. Although the two rear rings of the EZ-360 have notches grooved out of them for access to the AF/MF button, it is slow and awkward to be able to change modes. One time with the bracket attached to the lens, I was frustrated by the awkward action to switch modes. I thought I was smart by grabbing my Leatherman tool and using the very small flat-head screwdriver to push the button down while I rotated the lens. This button is probably the weakest physical part of the lens because I pushed with the tool a bit too hard and the button popped out and into the lens itself. After I got over how stupid I was I shook the lens and could hear the button rattling around inside. I also failed in switching modes so I was stuck with AF when I wanted to go manual for a few landscapes. Luckily, Nikon Canada has an office in Richmond and my wife was able to drop the lens off for me on her lunch break. Unfortunately, it cost me $250 to fix the button. I think that was a bit steep on the part of Nikon even though they did give me a short six-month warranty on the lens. The lens might still have been under official warranty but because I was not the original owner of the lens, the official warranty was no longer valid. A bit cheesy I think and it is my only quibble with Nikon Canada’s otherwise fine service. Have I actually talked about the technical performance of this lens yet? The Nikon Mailing List had a long discussion about the optical performance of this lens vis a vis the new AF-S version. Quite a few were posting about the light fall off aspects of the lens wide open and one test used to quantify the fall off was to shoot the clear blue sky at various apertures and then viewing the slides on a light table with a high power loupe. The only reason why I had any particular interest in such a silly discussion was that I was once rebuked on the 35mm equipment newsgroup about such a light fall off of the Nikon lens. If memory serves me correct, I was responding to a post about Pentax equipment in which the user made a dig against the high cost of Nikon equipment. I responded that Pentax gear was actually more expensive in some cases and used the 80-200mm f/2.8 class of lens as an example. I made one big mistake in getting my US and Canadian prices mixed up and stated that the Pentax lens was horrifically over priced at $3000. The Pentax lens is actually priced around $3000 BUT only in Canada. In the US it should be around $1500 as a few posters were quick to point out. Either country, the Pentax lens is still almost twice the price of the comparable Nikkor. One responder attempted to justify the extra cost by stating that the Pentax is a superior lens optically and used the light fall off aspect of the Nikkor as an example. The Pentax supposedly had superior fall off characteristics. I, quite frankly, didn’t give a rat’s ass about light fall off and SMC coating etc. I saw a lens priced at almost twice the amount of a Nikkor and even though I was willing to concede that maybe the Pentax could be a better lens I didn’t see how it could translate into a near 100% difference in price. Canon’s 70-200 f/2.8 is also priced around $1500 US ($2300 Canadian) but offers USM technology coupled to high quality optics. The same with Nikons new AF-S lens. And even with those lenses, I still have a tough time accepting their outrageous cost. The Pentax offers what? Power Zooming?! Get a life! When I came across the light fall-off
thread almost two years later on the Nikon Mailing List criticizing
the Nikkor, I decided to see if there was enough to be concerned about.
I waited for a nice sunny day that was cloudless to conduct my test
(harder and rarer then you might think in rainforest Vancouver). I
shot from f/2.8 to f/11 at 200mm. The results? Wide open I could JUST
detect the fall off in the corners with my 4x Iston loupe. At f/4
I can’t be sure if I see anything at all and at f/5.6 I can see nothing
at all. These contrasts (sorry) sharply with the test I did with my
24mm lens on the same roll of film. At f/2.8, the 24mm exhibits very
noticeable fall off in the corners (as expected with wide-angle lenses).
Conclusion? Why in hell do people get so worked up over such meaningless
tests? My brief and very non-scientific test of the lens revealed
that I couldn’t care less about a VERY, VERY tiny amount of light
fall off in the corners of my slides. It is a non-factor in my slides
and prints since I rarely shoot wide open anyway. It only reconfirms
in my mind that a person would have to be an idiot to buy into a Pentax
system on the basis of a tiny theoretical edge in optics. I’ll have
respect for the person if he/she states that they bought it for personal
"feel" and/or other reasons though. Simply put, this lens is more then good and sharp enough for most every use a person could use the relevant prime lenses for. It gives up a bit of speed in the lower range of the zoom to the primes but is more or less equal in REAL WORLD use at the long end. As much as I love the results from this lens, I would sell it in an instant to be rid of the EZ-360 hassles. Kirk Enterprise made it as painless and simply as possible to take advantage of what this lens has to offer on a tripod (thus saving the torture on the lens mount) but I do find it a pain for going back and forth between hand holding and tripod use. I’ve compromised to a certain degree by leaving the front and first base ring permanently attached to the lens. This leaves the bottom long plate attached to the second rear over-ring and I just attach this section of the bracket to the two permanent lens rings when I need to do some tripod work. When handholding, I remove the hex screws that keep the base plate and over-ring in place and store it in my camera bag. In this manner, I can at least go both ways with relative ease but it still isn’t as convenient as a dedicated tripod bracket already designed into the lens. I don’t change because I can’t afford and get away with such an expense at this point and time. Even if I could afford to buy a new lens, I have to use the money to fill in the gaps in my wide-angle coverage by getting the 20-35 f/2.8 or better yet, the just announced 17-35 AF-S f/2.8 lens. May 2003 - No longer part of my kit after an upgrade to the 70-200mm f2.8 AF-S VR lens.
|
|
Correspondence & About this website Copyright © 1998-2008 Edwin Leong |
|
 |
|
The
current non-AFS version of the venerable lens»
After
all was said and done, I paid out enough money that I could have bought
a brand new two-ring, tripod mount version of the 80-200mm 2.8. This
is why at the beginning of this review I typed that in hindsight,
I should have just bought the new version. One last note about ordering
products from the US. Unless absolutely required on a rush basis,
always have the product sent via the US Post Office. I think it took
just over a week to get my EZ-360 sent to me via regular airmail and
processed by Customs Canada. Canada Post charges a very reasonable
$5 fee for bringing the item across the border. If you have UPS or
any other big name courier company handling the product across the
border for you, be prepared to be bent over and reamed without being
kissed because they’ll ding you $50 for that privilege. My $185 US
EZ-360 cost me $300 Canadian after exchange rate and requisite hecatombs
were paid out to my oh-so scrupulous and promise-keeping federal government. 
July
2000 
