Nikon 80-200 f/4

207

207

Active member
Vintage glass, I need a cheap telephoto that's still very quality. I'm dead set on the 80-200 f/4

Watching them go on ebay for around $70

My only concern is wether or not it's sharp?

Talk me into/out of it.

 
theres not a whole lot of info on it online that I can find. I'd just say get a Canon 70-200 when you get the cash. IMO, worth every penny
 
depends on what your shooting. me living in michigan, shoot mainly park, have had no need to spend +600 dollars on a telephoto lens. I am thinking about getting this with an adapter or a canon 85mm f/1.8 Im leading to this, just because I can zoom. Just tell us what your shooing, If your going to be using it alot, yeah, save up at get the canon. But for my needs, this is perfect.
 
Im guessing you're looking at the push-pull version. Same optics as the other 80-200s, which are very nice. The nice thing with nikon is even glass made 30-40 years ago has just as good of glass as the lenses they make today. I mean, if you have a canon body and have any inclination to shoot photos, you'll want the canon 70-200. But, if you're just doing video the nikon 80-200 could be a good choice for sure. I plan on picking up either and 80-200 + 2x or 100-300 5.6 before ski season starts.
 
really? i thought it would be the other way around, for that week out of the year i shoot back country jumps, i would like to have something i can zoom, vs me manuvering around the fixed focal length.
 
well for those instanced, zoom hands down. the 85mm is more for portrait/interviews/specific long shots. Trust me, after using my 35mm adapter for a season, having just a 135mm prime (same FOV as 85mm on dslr) it was a huge pain trying to shoot long shots with it.
 
I love the beef you two got going on, makes me lol.

And from what I've read, it's not a bad lens if you don't want AF
 
actually the 80-200 f4 is a part of nikon's consumer tele zoom series and doesn't have the same quality of optics as the 80-200 2.8 series.
 
It was for me too, i was using a 35mm adapter, i was relating it to his situation where he was thinking about buying an 85mm. I don't get why you post stupid shit in M&A its fucking annoying.
 
the 80-200 f4 was one of Nikon's consumer zooms. although the f4 is well regarded in comparison to the earlier versions, it was created as a budget consumer lens. The f2.8 series were professional lenses with a much higher price point and quality.

They have different designs, the f4 has 13 elements and the 2.8 has 16.
 
This still proves nothing. The old f4 and f2.8 push pulls were the first nikon tele zooms and were discontinued when the new internal focus lenses came out WHICH are hundreds of dollars more based on that alone. Besides that, are cheaper because the build quality is worse, the push-pull system sucks and because they were made in the fucking 60's. I could argue that the fact is has 13 elements vs 16 elements makes it a better lens too, less elements, less glass, better image.

Like someone said before, even the low end nikon G lenses with variable aperture still use the same nikon glass as the high end 70-200 2.8. There is no lower "consumer" level glass, the price of nikon lenses are based on how they are build not on the glass, unlike canon. I'm not saying the old 80-200s have a better build quality or ergonomics, im talking about the glass which when it comes to old manual lenses it was matters the most.

And thomas, you really gonna tell me I don't know what I'm talking about? Ive been throughly researching nikon glass for over a year now, I may not be an "expert" but I do know a lot about it and just because you own a 5d and think you're the shit doesn't mean you know everything either. Half of your posts related to you telling jamie that he doesn't know anything (which you are very wrong about) or how you have a full frame camera. NO ONE GIVES A FUCK THAT YOU HAVE A FULL FRAME CAMERA, ANY DUMBASS CAN BUY A CAMERA just because you think yours is cooler than everyone elses doesn't make you're smart or that you know shit about cameras.

Post something worth while if you're so fucking smart.
 
And why the fuck do you misspell misleading. Apart from not using any interpunction, how come I have to correct you on your grammar as well...
 
8f637f6c-9818-4949-b7af-297f474f341a.jpg
 
By that logic, every nikon lens made in a certain time period should have the same image quality because it "uses the same glass."

But beside that point, there are many different types of glass used. non-coated, coated, multi-coated, nano-crystal coating, and low dispersion elements, among others. If you by an 18-55 kit lens you're sure as fuck not getting any nano crystal elements, because the glass used in a lens depends on the price and sales demographic.
 
thats like saying that the designs of cars are different, but the metal is the same. no shit, it doesn't mean that a ferrari is built the same or performs the same as a honda.
 
yes but he said that a cheap lower level lens is necessarily the same quality as a pro lens because they have the same optics, but i'm saying that Nikon doesnt use the same optics in all lenses. They use these coatings on certain elements, which effect image quality. I realize that they weren't using nano crystal coatings when they made the original 80-200's but my point is that the optics aren't the same quality.
 
Correct and I am not trying to say it is. All eheath and I are saying is they use the same glass on all levels rather than super pure glass on the highend and cheaper not so pure on the low end.

You seem to like cars so It would be like saying one company makes all their cars out of aluminum and another makes their high end ones out of aluminum and the lowend ones out of lead.
 
Well thats what i basically said, they use different features in different lenses than they do in others. The fact is, nikon optics at all the same, unlike canon which has "better (L)" glass. Of course alot goes into what makes a lens good but IMO older nikon lenses shine even the 80-200 f4
 
yep i can agree with you on that one. I just realized i have 8 nikon lenses more than 30 years old. Dear god, i'm becoming one of those anal retentive lens collectors...
 
I don't usually make posts without any value, but in this case I'm just stopping in to say I'm enjoying this.

 
Oh, and OP... It's plenty sharp. Remember that you're not going to be able to tell the difference between a super sharp lens and a less than super sharp lens for video use as it's not going to make a difference at the the resolution offered by 1080.

Even if you're using it for photo, it's a sharp lens so long as you can nail focus.

 
I think this needs to be highlighted.

Marginal differences in optics won't effect HD video because 1080p is under 2 megapixels. Same reason why Canon L glass is tack sharp on the 7D but softer on a 5D mkII's 21mp image. Hence, the difference in sharpness between a $70 vintage Nikon telephoto and a new one will be practically nonexistent. The real issue are things like CA or fringing.
 
I would HIGHLY recommend saving up and investing in something with autofocus. Older manual focus lenses were designed to work with pentaprism viewfinders that made focusing a lot easier. You have to do with them is get a straight line to line up and you know its sharp. Modern dslrs dont have that kind of viewfinder, and as a result its much harder to get a sharp image, especially wide open. Take it from me, still shooting on a pentax k-mount 400 prime because i cant afford anything better right now, you will have VERY few keepers and a lot of out of focus shots. Its definitely worth your while to save your money and get something with autofocus to save yourself the pain of having so many shots not turn out.
 
Absolutely this!

I realize the 100 dollar lens is tantalizing, but I'm going to give you one piece of advice to carry with you:

Bodies change and are replaced. But always buy the lens you want, the first time. There's no point wasting time and money buying a lens you're not going to be interested in using later.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top