Apples

by Garik

submit your photo


Picture of the Week Themes
Suggest and vote on themes

Please participate in Meta
and help us grow.

Tell me more ×
Photography Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professional, enthusiast and amateur photographers. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I just got my Nikon D7000 and I was not satisfied with the kit lens that came with it (18-105mm VR), so I have now set my eyes on an 80-200mm available for $1000 on a local store.

However, I have heard photography sites that say never to pair up the 80-200mm f/2.8 with a DX camera an instead to go for the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR2, which is more than twice the price of the 80-200.

For budget reasons, I am not able to go 70-200mm, but I would not want to waste money on an 80-200 if it will not work as I expect it.

I do mainly sports photography and candid shots of people from events, so I need the zoom and the f/2.8. I also plan to do small music videos, so I need the zoom and the f/2.8 aperture, again.

So why, exactly, do some people say not to pair up the f/2.8 80-200mm with DX cameras? Or in general, why would I not want to pair up a lens designed for FX cams with DX cams?

share|improve this question
show 2 more comments

11 Answers

The 70-200 isn't specifically better for DX cameras than the 80-200 -- it's probably a better lens, and it has AF-S and VR, which are both nice, but there's nothing about it that makes it a better fit for DX cameras.

Your friend might be incorrectly assuming that the D7000 has no in-body focus motor (thus requiring AF-S lenses such as the 70-200 for autofocus), because none of the other Dxx00 cameras have one.

I should also note that Nikon briefly made an 80-200 AF-S lens that would work fully with all Nikon DSLRs, but the current model of 80-200 is simply AF.

share|improve this answer

I've owned and used both the AFS 80-200 and the AFS 70-200 VR lenses extensively for sports with Nikon D2h, D2x, D300 and D3 bodies. The 70-200 is superior to the 80-200 in auto-focus speed and accuracy and the images produced by the 70-200 have better contrast. The 80-200 is a great lens, but the 70-200 is a superb lens, one of the best Nikon has ever made.

You can read a good review of the 70-200 at Bjorn Rorslett's website.

share|improve this answer

Maybe a Nikon expert will come along and given a better answer, but: I can't see any reason to be scared of this lens. Thom Hogan gives it a nice review, with the theme throughout that some of the lens's downsides are hidden from DX users: "DX users won't find a significant flaw, FX users will still be very happy, especially at f/4 and smaller."

The concern you may be seeing is that the lens doesn't isn't an AF-S lens, meaning it won't auto-focus on the entry-level Nikon bodies. That's not a problem with your D7000, however.

share|improve this answer

I also considered the Nikon 80-200mm F2.8 for my D90, and compared it to the second version of the Sigma 70-200mm F2.8. See Sigma 70-200mm vs Nikon 80-200mm Auto Focus Speed

I ended up buying the Sigma because it was cheaper, and had the HSM AF motor built-in (the Nikon requires an AF motor in the camera body, so the AF won't work with some older and/or lower end Nikon DSLRs that don't have a built-in AF motor), but the AF will work fine with the D7000, which does have a built-in AF motor).

The Sigma also has a 10 year warranty in Canada. Plus also, the only time I tried to evaluate the Nikon (at the Henry's Photo / Imaging Show in Toronto) the demo they gave me to try would not auto-focus at all (I took it as a sign!).

Having said that, my Sigma is currently in being tuned (it was front focusing) and evaluated (sometimes the AF system just stops working - see Reasons for Auto-Focus Freezing). I feel like the Sigma isn't always as sharp as I would like (hopefully fixing the front focusing will help).

If I had to do it again, I might buy the Nikon instead, but I do like my Sigma, and have gotten lots of great shots with it.

I don't think you'll have any problems with the Nikon on the D7000.

share|improve this answer

No reason at all to avoid that lens on D7000. It's a great 'poor man's' alternative to the 70-200 f2.8. Should be able to find a good used copy now around $700-$800.

share|improve this answer

Not a particularly scientific answer, but I had an 80-200 f2.8 that I used on my D300 for a while. I no longer have it, but only because it was too heavy - when I did actually use it I got some very nice images from it.

share|improve this answer

The lens is not AF-S (Auto Focus Silent) which means your camera has to use its internal motor to auto focus, generating some audible noise. This might be disturbing in some events with quiet background (e.g during speeches). Those situations are generally quite peaceful - so, if you feel comfortable with manual focus, you may as well disable auto focusing.

share|improve this answer

There is an issue combining the D7000 with the two ring 80-200mm f2.8 D ED. It will back focus bewteen 1-2 inchs. Even witht he fine tuning in the D7000 it will not properly focus at long focal lengths and wide open. The lens is tack sharp in Manual mode.

share|improve this answer

I've been asking the same question - i have a d300 with a sigma 70 - 200 2.8 - can't say I can complain about the shots - they look great to me but not tried a nikon lens in this magnification range. I know the d7000 has has amazing reviews on line and I've heard great things from friends that own one - i've met a couple people who adore the 80 - 200 and hark back to those heady days before they upgraded to the 70 - 200 saying that while the upgrade is slightly better it wasn't necessarily worth the cost. i might throw my hat in next month and get the 80 - 200, try it for a while on the d300 then consider upgrading my body to a d7000 -

share|improve this answer

I use my 80-200 extensively on a D7000, mainly for events. It is old school (no VR and no AFS motor), but for me since I'm shooting mainly outdoors, it does an excellent job and I love the sturdy construction. Excellent color, contrast and bokeh. I got it used in excellent condition for $825. The price for a comparable Nikon version would have been 2.5 times more.

share|improve this answer

The 80-200 f2.8 lens is going to be pretty heavy compared to a similar DX lens. This is mainly because the glass elements have to be larger to accommodate a full-frame camera. The D7000 is not a full-frame camera and does not need the full frame. However, the 1.5X multiplier turns this lens into the equivalent of a 120-300mm lns.

I would recommend getting a DX lens instead, because you can get more for your money. The reason you get more for your money is simply that the ultra-low dispersion glass is very expensive, and using smaller elements in the lens saves money.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.
{"cc_re__cc_re__cc_by_sa_3_0": ["f=\"http://area51.stackexchange.com\" title=\"proposing new sites in the Stack Exchange network\">Area 51</a></li>\r\n                        <li><a href=\"http://careers.stackoverflow.com\">Stack Overflow Careers</a></li>\r\n                    \r\n                </ol>\r\n            </td>\r\n    </tr>\r\n</table>\r\n                </div>\r\n            </div>\r\n\r\n            <div id=\"copyright\">\r\n                site design / logo &copy; 2013 stack exchange inc; \r\n                user contributions licensed under <a href=\"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/\" rel=\"license\">cc-wiki</a> \r\n                with <a href=\"http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/06/attribution-required/\" rel=\"license\">attribution required</a>\r\n            </div>\r\n            <div id=\"footer-flair\">\r\n                <a href=\"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/\" class=\"cc-wiki-link\"></a>\r\n            </div>\r\n            <div id=\"svnrev\">\r\n                rev 2013.5.20.691\r\n            </div>\r\n            \r\n        </div>\r\n    </div>\r\n    <noscript>\r\n        <div id=\"noscript-warning\"", "\r\n</table>\r\n                </div>\r\n            </div>\r\n\r\n            <div id=\"copyright\">\r\n                site design / logo &copy; 2013 stack exchange inc; \r\n                user contributions licensed under <a href=\"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/\" rel=\"license\">cc-wiki</a> \r\n                with <a href=\"http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/06/attribution-required/\" rel=\"license\">attribution required</a>\r\n            </div>\r\n            <div id=\"footer-flair\">\r\n                <a href=\"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/\" class=\"cc-wiki-link\"></a>\r\n            </div>\r\n            <div id=\"svnrev\">\r\n                rev 2013.5.20.691\r\n            </div>\r\n            \r\n        </div>\r\n    </div>\r\n    <noscript>\r\n        <div id=\"noscript-warning\">Photography Stack Exchange works best with JavaScript enabled<img src=\"http://pixel.quantserve.com/pixel/p-c1rF4kxgLUzNc.gif\" alt=\"\" class=\"dno\"></div>\r\n    </noscript>\r\n    <script type=\"text/javascript\">var _gaq=_gaq||[];_gaq.push(['_setAccount','UA-5620270-24']);\r\n        _gaq.push(['_setDom"], "copyright__copyright__copyright": [" the equivalent of a 120-300mm lns.\n\nI would recommend getting a DX lens instead, because you can get more for your money. The reason you get more for your money is simply that the ultra-low dispersion glass is very expensive, and using smaller elements in the lens saves money.\n\nshare|improve this answer\n\nYour Answer\n\n\u00a0\ndiscard\n\nBy posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.\n\nNot the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question."]}