Is the 80-200mm f/2.8 worth getting?

[radhak]

I have an offer of getting the Nikon Lens 80mm-200mm f/2.8 ( product link on Amazon) for $500 from a photo local blogger. She says she has barely used it 10 times, and now just wants to get some money for it.

I have been wanting the 70-200 for long, maybe with the VR if possible, but I've to admit that shelling out over $1000 (for a used one), is probably not happening soon enough. In the meanwhile I shoot birds, kids' sports, etc with the 70-300 and rue that anything less than bright sunlight is not good for it. So this seems to be a good option.

I know this does not have VR, but I don't use VR currently - when the situation demands I use a tripod.

At the same time, this will be the heaviest lens for me, almost twice my 17-35mm (45oz vs 26oz) and I'm not sure how much I will need the VR - can I hand-hold it at all, maybe some of the time? Or will the lack of VR translate to always lugging around a tripod/monopod?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I'm eying the same lens in the AF-D version, but not the push-pull version. I think her price is a fair one.

I've been using the 70-300 that has AF-S and VR and it's done me really well, but I wanted to get into some faster glass. I just picked up the AF-D 300mm f4, and now I have my sights set on the 80-200 2.8.

I quickly noticed the absence of VR on the 300mm prime, but I'll almost always be using it in daylight so I think I can make up for it with faster shutter speeds or a tripod.

 

[radhak]

The pictures tell me this is not the push-pull version. I have tried that one earlier and did not like it much.

 

[tdawg]

I think it's worth it. I still have mine from when I was with Nikon and adapt it to my Sony if I need reach. Of course, I'm not shooting action with it...

On my D600 it was a champ. It was great shooting a few concerts with and I didn't miss VR at all. $500 seems reasonable to me.

 

[NAC]

I would get it. At a good price, you can sell it for what you bought it for when you want to upgrade. I'm not familiar with the lens, but one review I looked at seems ok. And the 70/80-200 mm focal length with 2.8 aperture just creates a terrific look with creamy background with a "portrait look". You can't replicate it with a cheaper lens. So, you'll take great photos, and it may cost nothing, or actually make you money when you sell it. What's not to like?

Uh... make your your body has the screw AF drive.

 

[BoomerD]

It's a great lens...if you NEED it and can take advantage of what it offers.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/80200.htm

 

[radhak]

So I took a leap and bought it:

Came in a nice box:

Seems to work pretty good. It is solid, but does not feel all that heavy within, say, 30 minutes of use. I'm sure lugging this on a trek could be an issue.

Have to take it out for something worth its while - maybe an indoor/late evening game or performance this weekend.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I'm taking delivery of mine this week also. I'll be interested in your experience. What body are you shooting this with (on mobile, so Idk if it says in your sig)?

 

[radhak]

I'm taking delivery of mine this week also. I'll be interested in your experience. What body are you shooting this with (on mobile, so Idk if it says in your sig)?

I have it on a D750, so I can't complain about gear now!

I have this camera and a couple of good lenses for almost 5 months now, and I have been so slammed at work that I have zilch to show for it in terms of pictures- other than kiddie parties and etc. I really need to find time to go out of home, at least weekends...

Anyway - I'll try and use this lens and share.