# Nikon Digital SLR guidance

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Neil Jones, Jul 26, 2011.

1. ### Neil JonesGuest

Hi,

I am a very very amateurish photographer. Before the digital cameras, I
invested in some Nikon Lenses for the Nikon AF 6006 camera. In the
digital camera arena, the most advanced version of the camera that I
have dealt with are the telezoom cameras (Lumix FZ28/FZ100 type).
However, sometimes I do want to own a DSLR but do not want to break the
bank either. The best Nikor lens I have is the AF ED 80-200 F/2.8 and
the other lenses are about average. It is sad to see the lenses
accumulating dust. Which DSLR would give some life to these lenses
and some fun for me (again without breaking the bank)?

--
NJ

http://investeur.co/

Neil Jones, Jul 26, 2011

2. ### Joe MakowiecGuest

On 26 Jul 2011 in rec.photo.digital, Neil Jones wrote:

> I am a very very amateurish photographer. Before the digital
> cameras, I invested in some Nikon Lenses for the Nikon AF 6006
> camera. In the digital camera arena, the most advanced version of
> the camera that I have dealt with are the telezoom cameras (Lumix
> FZ28/FZ100 type). However, sometimes I do want to own a DSLR but do
> not want to break the bank either. The best Nikor lens I have is
> the AF ED 80-200 F/2.8 and the other lenses are about average. It
> is sad to see the lenses accumulating dust. Which DSLR would
> give some life to these lenses and some fun for me (again without
> breaking the bank)?

These lens compatibility charts should tell you whether your lenses
will work on which dSLRs:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/compatibility-lens.htm

http://www.nikonians.org/nikon/slr-lens.html

The AF ED certainly will. If you don't want to break the bank, you
probably want to eliminate the full-frame (FX) sensor cameras - D3S,
D3X, D700 - from consideration. Of the rest, body-only prices range
from US$500 to US$1,700. Nikon's dSLR page allows you to compare them:

http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Digital-SLR-Cameras/index.page

I just bought a D7000, although it replaced an earlier Nikon digital,

--
Joe Makowiec
http://makowiec.org/
Email: http://makowiec.org/contact/?Joe
Usenet Improvement Project: http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/

Joe Makowiec, Jul 26, 2011

3. ### David Dyer-BennetGuest

On Jul 26, 2:35 pm, Neil Jones <> wrote:

> I am a very very amateurish photographer.  Before the digital cameras, I
> invested in some Nikon Lenses for the Nikon AF 6006 camera.  In the
> digital camera arena, the most advanced version of the camera that I
> have dealt with are the telezoom cameras (Lumix FZ28/FZ100 type).
> However, sometimes I do want to own a DSLR but do not want to break the
> bank either.  The best Nikor lens I have is the AF ED 80-200 F/2.8 and
> the other lenses are about average.  It is sad to see the lenses
> accumulating dust.  Which DSLR would give some life to these lenses
> and some fun for me (again without breaking the bank)?

The short rule is, any Nikon lens that will mount on the
6006 will mount and work usefully (but not necessarilly
with all the frills) on any Nikon DSLR body. However,
there are some bodies that will not AF with older AF lenses
(the D40 and friends AF with AF-S lenses only), and some
bodies that will not meter with non-chipped lenses (which
is not that big a deal in most cases, I used one for a few
years myself).

Depending on what kind of photography you do, and personal
preference, the lack of AF is somewhere between fatal and
irrelevant . Up to you!

That 80-200/2.8 is a first-rate lens according to all
reports. Optically equal to my much-more-expensive
70-200/2.8 AF-S VR, though it will focus slower, and
doesn't have VR (I'm not much impressed with VR in the
70-200 anyway).

I found the 80-200 length VERY useful on an APS-C (DX in
Nikon terms) body (Fuji S2, and then Nikon D200). (You
understand that the field of view depends on the sensor
size, right? So 200mm on a DX body gives the same field of
view as 300mm on an FX body?) You'll probably find
yourself having to replace your widest lens to be happy,
and maybe your walkaround lens as well.

From what you say about price, I'm assuming the FX bodies,
D700 and D3s and D3x, are out of the question. It does
sound like a D90, maybe used or refurb, might be a good fit
for you.

Good luck!

David Dyer-Bennet, Jul 26, 2011
4. ### Neil JonesGuest

On 7/26/2011 11:43 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> On Jul 26, 2:35 pm, Neil Jones <> wrote:
>
>> I am a very very amateurish photographer. Before the digital cameras, I
>> invested in some Nikon Lenses for the Nikon AF 6006 camera. In the
>> digital camera arena, the most advanced version of the camera that I
>> have dealt with are the telezoom cameras (Lumix FZ28/FZ100 type).
>> However, sometimes I do want to own a DSLR but do not want to break the
>> bank either. The best Nikor lens I have is the AF ED 80-200 F/2.8 and
>> the other lenses are about average. It is sad to see the lenses
>> accumulating dust. Which DSLR would give some life to these lenses
>> and some fun for me (again without breaking the bank)?

>
> The short rule is, any Nikon lens that will mount on the
> 6006 will mount and work usefully (but not necessarilly
> with all the frills) on any Nikon DSLR body. However,
> there are some bodies that will not AF with older AF lenses
> (the D40 and friends AF with AF-S lenses only), and some
> bodies that will not meter with non-chipped lenses (which
> is not that big a deal in most cases, I used one for a few
> years myself).
>
> Depending on what kind of photography you do, and personal
> preference, the lack of AF is somewhere between fatal and
> irrelevant . Up to you!
>
> That 80-200/2.8 is a first-rate lens according to all
> reports. Optically equal to my much-more-expensive
> 70-200/2.8 AF-S VR, though it will focus slower, and
> doesn't have VR (I'm not much impressed with VR in the
> 70-200 anyway).
>
> I found the 80-200 length VERY useful on an APS-C (DX in
> Nikon terms) body (Fuji S2, and then Nikon D200). (You
> understand that the field of view depends on the sensor
> size, right? So 200mm on a DX body gives the same field of
> view as 300mm on an FX body?) You'll probably find
> yourself having to replace your widest lens to be happy,
> and maybe your walkaround lens as well.
>
> From what you say about price, I'm assuming the FX bodies,
> D700 and D3s and D3x, are out of the question. It does
> sound like a D90, maybe used or refurb, might be a good fit
> for you.
>
> Good luck!

Thank you! The advice is very practical for me.

I think a used D90 would be good camera to own for the moment.

Thank you once again.

--
NJ http://investeur.co/

Neil Jones, Jul 28, 2011
5. ### Moro Grubb of Little DelvingGuest

On Jul 26, 2:43 pm, David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
> On Jul 26, 2:35 pm, Neil Jones <> wrote:
>
> > I am a very very amateurish photographer.  Before the digital cameras, I
> > invested in some Nikon Lenses for the Nikon AF 6006 camera.  In the
> > digital camera arena, the most advanced version of the camera that I
> > have dealt with are the telezoom cameras (Lumix FZ28/FZ100 type).
> > However, sometimes I do want to own a DSLR but do not want to break the
> > bank either.  The best Nikor lens I have is the AF ED 80-200 F/2.8 and
> > the other lenses are about average.  It is sad to see the lenses
> > accumulating dust.  Which DSLR would give some life to these lenses
> > and some fun for me (again without breaking the bank)?

>
> The short rule is, any Nikon lens that will mount on the
> 6006 will mount and work usefully (but not necessarilly
> with all the frills) on any Nikon DSLR body.  However,
> there are some bodies that will not AF with older AF lenses
> (the D40 and friends AF with AF-S lenses only), and some
> bodies that will not meter with non-chipped lenses (which
> is not that big a deal in most cases, I used one for a few
> years myself).
>
> Depending on what kind of photography you do, and personal
> preference, the lack of AF is somewhere between fatal and
> irrelevant .  Up to you!
>
> That 80-200/2.8 is a first-rate lens according to all
> reports.  Optically equal to my much-more-expensive
> 70-200/2.8 AF-S VR, though it will focus slower, and
> doesn't have VR (I'm not much impressed with VR in the
> 70-200 anyway).
>
> I found the 80-200 length VERY useful on an APS-C (DX in
> Nikon terms) body (Fuji S2, and then Nikon D200).  (You
> understand that the field of view depends on the sensor
> size, right?  So 200mm on a DX body gives the same field of
> view as 300mm on an FX body?)  You'll probably find
> yourself having to replace your widest lens to be happy,
> and maybe your walkaround lens as well.
>
> From what you say about price, I'm assuming the FX bodies,
> D700 and D3s and D3x, are out of the question. It does
> sound like a D90, maybe used or refurb, might be a good fit
> for you.
>
> Good luck!

If your budget is really tight, you could probably pick up a used D50,
D70 or D80 for a song these days...

/M

Moro Grubb of Little Delving, Jul 28, 2011
6. ### BruceGuest

David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
>
>That 80-200/2.8 is a first-rate lens according to all
>reports. Optically equal to my much-more-expensive
>70-200/2.8 AF-S VR, though it will focus slower, and
>doesn't have VR (I'm not much impressed with VR in the
>70-200 anyway).

I agree with all of the above. Plus, if the 80-200mm f/2.8 is the
last AF-S version, it focuses just as fast as the later 70-200mm.

Nikon Europe apparently has hundreds of these 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-S
lenses in stock but for some reason won't release them to dealers. We
have a list price, we know they have them, but we cannot order them.
No-one knows (or will tell us) why not. Very disappointing, because
they are excellent lenses, and particularly good value for money.

The two touch 'screwdriver drive' version is also optically excellent
and is very fast to focus on late 35mm SLRs and pro/prosumer DSLRs
despite not having the Silent Wave motor. Its only real weakness is
its rather unsharp performance at the 200mm focal length when focused
at or near its minimum focusing distance, but experienced users know
they can correct that by using a +1 close-up lens.

Bruce, Jul 28, 2011
7. ### meGuest

On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 21:35:22 +0200, Neil Jones <> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>I am a very very amateurish photographer. Before the digital cameras, I
>invested in some Nikon Lenses for the Nikon AF 6006 camera. In the
>digital camera arena, the most advanced version of the camera that I
>have dealt with are the telezoom cameras (Lumix FZ28/FZ100 type).
>However, sometimes I do want to own a DSLR but do not want to break the
>bank either. The best Nikor lens I have is the AF ED 80-200 F/2.8 and
>the other lenses are about average. It is sad to see the lenses
>accumulating dust. Which DSLR would give some life to these lenses
>and some fun for me (again without breaking the bank)?
>

I've just seen your post looking like your coming to the D90. It might
help if you talk about the type of photography you do. For instance I
make great use of the autoiso modes in my D200/D300 and this is just
one area the next level down in cameras is hampered. Specifically I
set a min shutter speed to fix on and shoot aperture-priority mode and
let the iso float to accommodate up to a user set limit.

me, Jul 28, 2011
8. ### PeterNGuest

On 7/28/2011 1:56 PM, Moro Grubb of Little Delving wrote:
> On Jul 26, 2:43 pm, David Dyer-Bennet<> wrote:
>> On Jul 26, 2:35 pm, Neil Jones<> wrote:
>>
>>> I am a very very amateurish photographer. Before the digital cameras, I
>>> invested in some Nikon Lenses for the Nikon AF 6006 camera. In the
>>> digital camera arena, the most advanced version of the camera that I
>>> have dealt with are the telezoom cameras (Lumix FZ28/FZ100 type).
>>> However, sometimes I do want to own a DSLR but do not want to break the
>>> bank either. The best Nikor lens I have is the AF ED 80-200 F/2.8 and
>>> the other lenses are about average. It is sad to see the lenses
>>> accumulating dust. Which DSLR would give some life to these lenses
>>> and some fun for me (again without breaking the bank)?

>>
>> The short rule is, any Nikon lens that will mount on the
>> 6006 will mount and work usefully (but not necessarilly
>> with all the frills) on any Nikon DSLR body. However,
>> there are some bodies that will not AF with older AF lenses
>> (the D40 and friends AF with AF-S lenses only), and some
>> bodies that will not meter with non-chipped lenses (which
>> is not that big a deal in most cases, I used one for a few
>> years myself).
>>
>> Depending on what kind of photography you do, and personal
>> preference, the lack of AF is somewhere between fatal and
>> irrelevant . Up to you!
>>
>> That 80-200/2.8 is a first-rate lens according to all
>> reports. Optically equal to my much-more-expensive
>> 70-200/2.8 AF-S VR, though it will focus slower, and
>> doesn't have VR (I'm not much impressed with VR in the
>> 70-200 anyway).
>>
>> I found the 80-200 length VERY useful on an APS-C (DX in
>> Nikon terms) body (Fuji S2, and then Nikon D200). (You
>> understand that the field of view depends on the sensor
>> size, right? So 200mm on a DX body gives the same field of
>> view as 300mm on an FX body?) You'll probably find
>> yourself having to replace your widest lens to be happy,
>> and maybe your walkaround lens as well.
>>
>> From what you say about price, I'm assuming the FX bodies,
>> D700 and D3s and D3x, are out of the question. It does
>> sound like a D90, maybe used or refurb, might be a good fit
>> for you.
>>
>> Good luck!

>
> If your budget is really tight, you could probably pick up a used D50,
> D70 or D80 for a song these days...
>

With my singing ability I could get more than one if I refrain from
singing.

--
Peter

PeterN, Jul 28, 2011
9. ### PeterNGuest

On 7/28/2011 2:35 PM, Bruce wrote:
> David Dyer-Bennet<> wrote:
>>
>> That 80-200/2.8 is a first-rate lens according to all
>> reports. Optically equal to my much-more-expensive
>> 70-200/2.8 AF-S VR, though it will focus slower, and
>> doesn't have VR (I'm not much impressed with VR in the
>> 70-200 anyway).

>
>
> I agree with all of the above. Plus, if the 80-200mm f/2.8 is the
> last AF-S version, it focuses just as fast as the later 70-200mm.

I don't rely on "all reports" in commenting on a lens. I try it for
myself. I use my 70-200 almost as a general purpose lens. My daughter
had the 80-200. She found the focus too slow and traded it towards the
70-200.

Whether you need VR is a matter of what you photograph. With my D300 I
use high ISO or on a tripod. In either case I turn off VR. Turning off
VR gives a faster release time.

<snip>

Use of a close up optic degrades the quality of the fine Nikon optics.
If I want closer focus I use extension tubes.

YMMV

--
Peter

PeterN, Jul 28, 2011

In article <4e31b63e$0$12493$-secrets.com>, PeterN <> wrote: > >> That 80-200/2.8 is a first-rate lens according to all > >> reports. Optically equal to my much-more-expensive > >> 70-200/2.8 AF-S VR, though it will focus slower, and > >> doesn't have VR (I'm not much impressed with VR in the > >> 70-200 anyway). > > > > I agree with all of the above. Plus, if the 80-200mm f/2.8 is the > > last AF-S version, it focuses just as fast as the later 70-200mm. > > I don't rely on "all reports" in commenting on a lens. I try it for > myself. I use my 70-200 almost as a general purpose lens. My daughter > had the 80-200. She found the focus too slow and traded it towards the > 70-200. which 80-200? there were several versions, ranging from slow focus to very fast (just as fast as the 70-200). it also can depend on the camera. > Whether you need VR is a matter of what you photograph. With my D300 I > use high ISO or on a tripod. In either case I turn off VR. Turning off > VR gives a faster release time. nope. there is no additional delay once vr is engaged. also, vr helps stabilize tripods, especially if it's windy. > Use of a close up optic degrades the quality of the fine Nikon optics. only if it's a poor quality closeup lens. > If I want closer focus I use extension tubes. that also degrades things, since the lens was probably not designed for an extension (some lenses might be though). nospam, Jul 28, 2011 11. ### PeterNGuest On 7/28/2011 3:25 PM, nospam wrote: > In article<4e31b63e$0$12493$-secrets.com>, PeterN
> <> wrote:
>
>>>> That 80-200/2.8 is a first-rate lens according to all
>>>> reports. Optically equal to my much-more-expensive
>>>> 70-200/2.8 AF-S VR, though it will focus slower, and
>>>> doesn't have VR (I'm not much impressed with VR in the
>>>> 70-200 anyway).
>>>
>>> I agree with all of the above. Plus, if the 80-200mm f/2.8 is the
>>> last AF-S version, it focuses just as fast as the later 70-200mm.

>>
>> I don't rely on "all reports" in commenting on a lens. I try it for
>> myself. I use my 70-200 almost as a general purpose lens. My daughter
>> had the 80-200. She found the focus too slow and traded it towards the
>> 70-200.

>
> which 80-200? there were several versions, ranging from slow focus to
> very fast (just as fast as the 70-200). it also can depend on the
> camera.
>

Not sure which one. She only had it for about a week and it may well
have been one of the slow focus ones.

>> Whether you need VR is a matter of what you photograph. With my D300 I
>> use high ISO or on a tripod. In either case I turn off VR. Turning off
>> VR gives a faster release time.

>
> nope. there is no additional delay once vr is engaged. also, vr helps
> stabilize tripods, especially if it's windy.

I tend to follow the manufacturers recommendations. You are free to do
otherwise. My avian photographer friends do not use VR unless necessary
as they feel it takes additional time to stabilize.

>
>> Use of a close up optic degrades the quality of the fine Nikon optics.

>
> only if it's a poor quality closeup lens.

then recommend on that does not degrade resolution.

>
>> If I want closer focus I use extension tubes.

>
> that also degrades things, since the lens was probably not designed for
> an extension (some lenses might be though).

It should have little noticeable effect on the resolution. If I am
wrong, I would like proof.

--
Peter

PeterN, Jul 28, 2011

In article <4e31bb0d$0$12523$-secrets.com>, PeterN <> wrote: > >> Whether you need VR is a matter of what you photograph. With my D300 I > >> use high ISO or on a tripod. In either case I turn off VR. Turning off > >> VR gives a faster release time. > > > > nope. there is no additional delay once vr is engaged. also, vr helps > > stabilize tripods, especially if it's windy. > > I tend to follow the manufacturers recommendations. You are free to do > otherwise. My avian photographer friends do not use VR unless necessary > as they feel it takes additional time to stabilize. nikon recommends using vr on a tripod for many of their vr lenses, including the 70-200 you use: <http://support.nikonusa.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/7676> the 'additional time to stabilize' happens when you're composing and focusing. it's a non-issue. nospam, Jul 28, 2011 13. ### PeterNGuest On 7/28/2011 3:44 PM, nospam wrote: > In article<4e31bb0d$0$12523$-secrets.com>, PeterN
> <> wrote:
>
>>>> Whether you need VR is a matter of what you photograph. With my D300 I
>>>> use high ISO or on a tripod. In either case I turn off VR. Turning off
>>>> VR gives a faster release time.
>>>
>>> nope. there is no additional delay once vr is engaged. also, vr helps
>>> stabilize tripods, especially if it's windy.

>>
>> I tend to follow the manufacturers recommendations. You are free to do
>> otherwise. My avian photographer friends do not use VR unless necessary
>> as they feel it takes additional time to stabilize.

>
> nikon recommends using vr on a tripod for many of their vr lenses,
> including the 70-200 you use:
>

The source you cite says that you use VR "when the pan tilt head is
loose...."

With the following lenses/cameras VR should be "Off" when the camera is
mounted on a tripod and the pan/tilt head is locked down and using a
cable release:
•105mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR Micro Nikkor
•18-200mm f3.5-5.6 ED-IF AF-S VR DX Zoom-Nikkor
•24-120mm f3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor
•70-200mm f2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor
•80-400mm f4.5-5.6D ED VR AF Zoom-Nikkor

>
> the 'additional time to stabilize' happens when you're composing and
> focusing. it's a non-issue.

Very true with birds in flight. <\end sarcastic tag>

Please don't insult my intelligence by misquoting sources.

--
Peter

PeterN, Jul 28, 2011
14. ### tony cooperGuest

On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 15:38:48 -0400, PeterN
<> wrote:

>>> Whether you need VR is a matter of what you photograph. With my D300 I
>>> use high ISO or on a tripod. In either case I turn off VR. Turning off
>>> VR gives a faster release time.

>>
>> nope. there is no additional delay once vr is engaged. also, vr helps
>> stabilize tripods, especially if it's windy.

>
>I tend to follow the manufacturers recommendations. You are free to do
>otherwise. My avian photographer friends do not use VR unless necessary
>as they feel it takes additional time to stabilize.

The bird photographers in my camera club also include an admonition in
their presentations to turn off the VR on shots as you describe.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

tony cooper, Jul 28, 2011
15. ### MeGuest

On 29/07/2011 6:35 a.m., Bruce wrote:
> David Dyer-Bennet<> wrote:
>>
>> That 80-200/2.8 is a first-rate lens according to all
>> reports. Optically equal to my much-more-expensive
>> 70-200/2.8 AF-S VR, though it will focus slower, and
>> doesn't have VR (I'm not much impressed with VR in the
>> 70-200 anyway).

>
>
> I agree with all of the above. Plus, if the 80-200mm f/2.8 is the
> last AF-S version, it focuses just as fast as the later 70-200mm.
>
> Nikon Europe apparently has hundreds of these 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-S
> lenses in stock but for some reason won't release them to dealers. We
> have a list price, we know they have them, but we cannot order them.
> No-one knows (or will tell us) why not. Very disappointing, because
> they are excellent lenses, and particularly good value for money.
>

There are issues with premature AF-s motor failure on these lenses, an
expensive exercise to fix under warranty. Perhaps it was better
economics to not sell them, and sell the more reliable 70-200.
>
> The two touch 'screwdriver drive' version is also optically excellent
> and is very fast to focus on late 35mm SLRs and pro/prosumer DSLRs
> despite not having the Silent Wave motor. Its only real weakness is
> its rather unsharp performance at the 200mm focal length when focused
> at or near its minimum focusing distance, but experienced users know
> they can correct that by using a +1 close-up lens.
>
>

Easiest (IMO) just to zoom back to <150mm, and take a step closer.
This lens has been round in various forms with same optical formula for
a long time. Not surprisingly, the close distance/long focal length
backfocus issue never seemed to be an issue before dslrs made it too
easy for people to test everything to death.
There is another weakness with the later 2-ring version of the lens.
The AF/MF switch ring on the barrel is badly engineered, and eventually
cracks and fails. The replacement part is inexpensive, but the lens has
to be disassembled to replace it.

Me, Jul 28, 2011
16. ### nospamGuest

In article <>, Neil
Harrington <> wrote:

> In chronological order of their appearance (and more or less ascending order
> of desirability and probable price), the D70, D70s, D50 (a later but lower
> priced version of the D70s),

d50 and d70s came out at the same time. they were similar but the d50
was not just a subset of the d70s. it did a few things the d70s didn't,
although it's been too long to remember what those were.

> D80 and D90. Any of those should work fine with
> any Nikon AF lenses, and there are must be loads of those models on eBay.
> The D90 is definitely the best, most advanced and feature-rich of those, and
> is almost certain to be the most expensive, all else being equal. My guess
> is you'd be able to find a D80 at a much more attractive price, and that is
> still a very nice and capable DSLR.

the d90 is still available, new.

> Avoid the small-body Nikons in the D40 family (D40X, D60, D3000, D5000 etc.)
> because they do not have the in-body AF motor you need for autofocusing
> older AF (non AF-S) lenses you probably own.

true if you want to keep older lenses, but in some cases, it may be
worth selling the older lenses and buying a less expensive camera with

nospam, Jul 29, 2011
17. ### BruceGuest

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>On 2011-07-28 14:00:23 -0700, Me <> said:
>> On 29/07/2011 6:35 a.m., Bruce wrote:
>>> David Dyer-Bennet<> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> That 80-200/2.8 is a first-rate lens according to all
>>>> reports. Optically equal to my much-more-expensive
>>>> 70-200/2.8 AF-S VR, though it will focus slower, and
>>>> doesn't have VR (I'm not much impressed with VR in the
>>>> 70-200 anyway).
>>>
>>>
>>> I agree with all of the above. Plus, if the 80-200mm f/2.8 is the
>>> last AF-S version, it focuses just as fast as the later 70-200mm.
>>>
>>> Nikon Europe apparently has hundreds of these 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-S
>>> lenses in stock but for some reason won't release them to dealers. We
>>> have a list price, we know they have them, but we cannot order them.
>>> No-one knows (or will tell us) why not. Very disappointing, because
>>> they are excellent lenses, and particularly good value for money.
>>>

>> There are issues with premature AF-s motor failure on these lenses, an
>> expensive exercise to fix under warranty. Perhaps it was better
>> economics to not sell them, and sell the more reliable 70-200.

>
>In the USA, Nikon withdrew all the AF-S 80-200mm f/2.8D ED lenses for
>that reason. This left the older bullet proof, reliable AF 80-200mm
>f/2.8D, which is still available and has actually out lived its
>successor.

Interesting, guys, thanks for that!

Bruce, Jul 29, 2011
18. ### nospamGuest

In article <>, Paul Furman
<> wrote:

> >>> If I want closer focus I use extension tubes.
> >>
> >> that also degrades things, since the lens was probably not designed for
> >> an extension (some lenses might be though).

> >
> > It should have little noticeable effect on the resolution. ...

>
> Extension tubes might work to overcome the described problem with
> softness at closest focus at 200mm because the lens wouldn't be in the
> closest focus arrangement. You would lose AF-S though except maybe with
> a third party extension tube. BTW I have used my 70-200 VR with a 500D
> closeup lens ($150) for chasing butterflies and such, it's nice to have > the VR, zoom and AF-S for that task. It's still not a 200mm f/4 Micro > but works OK. The closeup lens does degrade things some. the 500d is an excellent multi-element closeup lens. there is very little degradation with it. also, some zooms don't work with extension tubes at all. they won't be able to focus at *any* distance because the closest focus point is inside the lens nospam, Jul 29, 2011 19. ### ApteryxGuest On 28/07/2011 5:36 p.m., Neil Jones wrote: > On 7/26/2011 11:43 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote: >> On Jul 26, 2:35 pm, Neil Jones<> wrote: >> >>> I am a very very amateurish photographer. Before the digital cameras, I >>> invested in some Nikon Lenses for the Nikon AF 6006 camera. In the >>> digital camera arena, the most advanced version of the camera that I >>> have dealt with are the telezoom cameras (Lumix FZ28/FZ100 type). >>> However, sometimes I do want to own a DSLR but do not want to break the >>> bank either. The best Nikor lens I have is the AF ED 80-200 F/2.8 and >>> the other lenses are about average. It is sad to see the lenses >>> accumulating dust. Which DSLR would give some life to these lenses >>> and some fun for me (again without breaking the bank)? >> >> The short rule is, any Nikon lens that will mount on the >> 6006 will mount and work usefully (but not necessarilly >> with all the frills) on any Nikon DSLR body. However, >> there are some bodies that will not AF with older AF lenses >> (the D40 and friends AF with AF-S lenses only), and some >> bodies that will not meter with non-chipped lenses (which >> is not that big a deal in most cases, I used one for a few >> years myself). >> >> Depending on what kind of photography you do, and personal >> preference, the lack of AF is somewhere between fatal and >> irrelevant . Up to you! >> >> That 80-200/2.8 is a first-rate lens according to all >> reports. Optically equal to my much-more-expensive >> 70-200/2.8 AF-S VR, though it will focus slower, and >> doesn't have VR (I'm not much impressed with VR in the >> 70-200 anyway). >> >> I found the 80-200 length VERY useful on an APS-C (DX in >> Nikon terms) body (Fuji S2, and then Nikon D200). (You >> understand that the field of view depends on the sensor >> size, right? So 200mm on a DX body gives the same field of >> view as 300mm on an FX body?) You'll probably find >> yourself having to replace your widest lens to be happy, >> and maybe your walkaround lens as well. >> >> From what you say about price, I'm assuming the FX bodies, >> D700 and D3s and D3x, are out of the question. It does >> sound like a D90, maybe used or refurb, might be a good fit >> for you. >> >> Good luck! > > Thank you! The advice is very practical for me. > > I think a used D90 would be good camera to own for the moment. > You mentioned that the 80-200mm AF was your best lens, but did not say what other lenses you had and might want to still use. Note that if you have manual focus AI lenses, the D90 will not meter with them. To meter with those MF AI lenses without going to the expense of a full frame camera, you need either a D7000, D300s, D300, or D200. Apteryx Apteryx, Jul 29, 2011 20. ### PeterNGuest On 7/29/2011 12:03 AM, Paul Furman wrote: <snip> > > Extension tubes might work to overcome the described problem with > softness at closest focus at 200mm because the lens wouldn't be in the > closest focus arrangement. You would lose AF-S though except maybe with > a third party extension tube. BTW I have used my 70-200 VR with a 500D > closeup lens ($150) for chasing butterflies and such, it's nice to have
> the VR, zoom and AF-S for that task. It's still not a 200mm f/4 Micro
> but works OK. The closeup lens does degrade things some.

Most of the time I do not use autofocus for close up work. I prefer to
control the focus point. However if you are literally chasing
butterflies autofocus can be helpful. I use Kenko extension tubes. There
is no loss of function.

--
Peter

PeterN, Jul 29, 2011