Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 AF ED

[scpleta]

Hi guys.

I have a mate who has this lens (http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/images1/80-200mm-f28-af/D3S_6218-1200.jpg) and had me take it for a try.

This lens was last manufactured about 20 yrs ago and made in Japan.

I find the lens quite good for f/5.6 and smaller. f2.8 is not good as the picture is quite hazy. IQ and sharpness are good.

Now, he is asking me if I could make him an offer. There are some cosmetic issues on the lens though but it operates quite well.

If you were at my position, would you buy the lens? If yes, how much would you make and offer?

Thanks, in advance!

Cheers.

[ricktas]

go to ebay and search for it. see what it is selling for, and then you will know about what to offer.

[swifty]

Hazy? Have you inspected the lens elements for mould/fungus etc.?

[gerry]

hazy @ 2.8? might need to clarify that one - that would cause me concern - the 80-200 2.8 af ed is a good lens and a good alternate if you cannot afford the 70-200 2.8.

cost wise, ebay is a good place to look, but really I have seen some go on there for silly prices. personally I would not pay more than 600 for a good copy.

Have a look at ECS in sydney, they always have a good second hand stock list and they currently have one on there for 725, so that should give you a starting point

http://www.cameras.net.au/secondhand.php

[MattNQ]

I picked up the exact same model for $500 off Evilbay. Very good condition.
Keep in mind Eglobal (site sponsor) has new ones for $879. (two ring design as opposed to the push-pull)

It should be quite sharp & crystal clear at f2.8, not hazy. Sample of this lens at f2.8 below
http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?100271-Stone-Maidens

My thoughts would be to pass on it if you can't get good results at f2.8. It would be like having a Ferrari locked in second gear. :D

[arthurking83]

They're a tank of a lens.

Post an image to show this haze rendering too.

ie. is it focus issues, or is it internal dust?

All of the 80-200 AF/AF-D models that I know of needed a front protection filter to complete a seal to the lens's internals.
These lenses act like a vacuum device .. sucking all the dust out of a room and into it's internals!
(great for a dust free environment, but obviously not so for the lens!!) :p

The latest, 2 ring versions can work well enough.
I'm pretty sure this model has the annoying trait where the filter threads rotate on focusing. Important if you use polarisers.

Given the amount of money they cost tho(new or second hand), I'd recommend a much cheaper Tamron 70-200/2.8 as an alternative.
Better IQ, better focusing ability(with a caveat tho) and comes supplied with a lens hood as standard(never underestimate the need for a lens hood).

[Epoc]

One other thing to consider, will your shooting style make use of this lens? Are you buying it because your mate has it for sale, or will you actually shoot with it?

[N*A*M]

they do lose contrast wide open. you definitely need a hood - a screw-on round one would do. i used the 85mm F1.4D one, which worked ok on the wide end but probably didn't do much at 200mm. you will need to account for the loss of contrast in post processing. also, the focusing elements are HEAVY. wimpy AF bodies need not apply.

[Rattus79]

Have a look at the Tamron 70-200 2.8 and the Sigma version too, as these are new, and will also help to provide a base for your lower offering price. (Don't discount them as an option too, both are supreme pieces of glass)

[Epoc]

I love my Siggy 70-200 2.8. It's a lovely sharp lens all over, and on a FX body is a very useful focal length.

[MattNQ]

wimpy AF bodies need not apply.

:lol: Shhh, my D3000 will be offended. I don't even have an autofocus to blame when I get it wrong.:lol2:

[scpleta]

thanks guys for all the feedback. i'll get back and post pictures taken at f/2.8 and f/5.6 so you can see. cheers all! :D

[scpleta]

Hello guys! I managed to thoroughly clean the lens and removed the UV filter. Guess what? The haze was significantly reduced.

Now for my next question, would you pay this lens for $250? :o

Cheers once more!

[gerry]

Hello guys! I managed to thoroughly clean the lens and removed the UV filter. Guess what? The haze was significantly reduced.

Now for my next question, would you pay this lens for $250? :o

Cheers once more!

have a good look thru the lens and make sure there is no fungus, when you say the haze was significantly reduced, does that mean there is no haze now? even better post a picture of said haze :)

250, imo if its in good condition thats not a bad deal at all, if its got some kinda problem like fungus or something else then i would still steer clear.

[arthurking83]

Hello guys! I managed to thoroughly clean the lens and removed the UV filter. Guess what? The haze was significantly reduced. ....

UV filter not originally mentioned, so that makes perfect sense.
What brand?
I'd normally highly recommend to dump it, but in the case of this lens, the UV filter is not only handy, but required to seal the front of the lens from the elements.
So if the brand of filter is noname cheapo, look to get a decent quality filter(Nikon/Hoya/B+W ... or whatever)


..... Now for my next question, would you pay this lens for $250? :o

.....

DEFNINITELY!(as Gerry said only if in OK nik!).
Can you post any pics?