«

"David Ruether" <> writes:
> its range. BTW, the excellent sample tried is FS for just
> over $500 in mint condition with box, pictured here --
> www.donferrario.com/ruether/fs-zooms.htm.

That looks like the original version with no tripod collar?

"Paul Rubin" <http://> wrote in message news:...
> "David Ruether" <> writes:
>> its range. BTW, the excellent sample tried is FS for just
>> over $500 in mint condition with box, pictured here --
>> www.donferrario.com/ruether/fs-zooms.htm.

> That looks like the original version with no tripod collar?

Yes to both posters - but optically I think they are
identical. In any case, the one pictured is astonishingly
good. Even if it were not a zoom, at any FL in its range
it would be considered a first-rate lens (and it does
essentially equal the non-zoom Nikkors in its range,
even at f2.8, no small thing!).
--David Ruether

"David Ruether" <> writes:
> > That looks like the original version with no tripod collar?
> Yes to both posters - but optically I think they are
> identical. In any case, the one pictured is astonishingly good.

I remember that lens got very positive reviews at the time, and
I'm sure it's optically superb. The main gripes were the lack of
a tripod collar, and very slow AF, both fixed in later versions.
If I had the cash I'd be somewhat interested, I guess.

On 27 Mar 2007 06:05:03 -0700, "DeanB" <> wrote:

>Anyone using this lens? Do you love it? The reviews by Ken Rockwell
>are fantastic, although the site seems to say the same thing about all
>Nikon lenses, so I am not sure how much to read into that.
>
>I have the 17-55 f/2.8 already, and I'm concerned a little about the
>gap in focal length (55-80). Its going on a Nikon D2Hs.
>
>Comments appreciated.
>
>Thanks!
>
>Dean

I have the 80-200, and I love it. It has excellent clarity and is a
pleasure to shoot with. However, it's a big, heavy lens.
--David Salmansohn--

Change "nospam" to my first name and .org to .com to reply