Update 23 Feb 01

80-200mm f/2.8 AF-S

I'm finally writting an update about one of my favorite lenses. Okay, so all my lenses are favorites. But, some are more equal than others and my 80-200 f/2.8 AF-S is definately one of the more equal lenses in my arsenal.

My 70-180 Micro Nikkor is outstanding with respect to working in this lens range, but the focus speed of that lens was just too slow. My 300mm f/4 ED-IF was also too slow. Both of these lens' focus mechanism works through a drive shaft connected to the camera. Even though the F5 has superior focus speed, both lenses were just too slow when working high speed birds. I have many slightly soft images of Common Golden Eye's or even slower California Gulls. At the time I was new to the long lens game. I initially thought the troubles were caused by slight imperfections with the optics in my lenses. How could my F5 not be fast enough? Well, it isn't when combined with some lenses under specific situations. So began the quest for a suitable hand held short telephoto.

About the time I started my search, Nikon introduced the 80-400 f/4.5-5.6 VR. At first I was very enthusiastic about that lens. The introduction of Vibration Reduction or Canon's Image Stablization technology in the Nikon lens lineup was very inticing. But, I thought of my real requirements. I needed a hand held lens for bird photography. I didn't necessarily need something that could take extremely slow speed, hand held images. Since the 80-400 f/4.5-5.6 VR was driven by the camera's internal focus motor like my other lenses, I assessed this lens to have the same focus speed liimitations. Clearly that wouldn't satisfy my requirement. This is interesting because when money is available, lens envy because a very slippery slope. I definately wanted that newer lens but it wasn't going to satisfy my needs. I held to my original assessment and went with the 80-200 f/2.8 AF-S.

Finally, here's my review of this lens. In almost all respects, it's outstanding. Qualitatively, the sharpness and contrast are excellent throughout its focal length. There's imperceptabe improvements when you stop the lens down. Okay, there's a tiny bit of light fall off--vignetting-- when wide open at 80mm. This disappears when you stop down only a 1/3 stop or zoom in a little closer. Since I mostly use this lens for wildlife photography, my aperture is set to f/5.6 so I don't see this very often. The focus speed is incredible. By far, it's the fastest focusing lens I own. It even exceeds the speed of my other AF-S lenses--300mm and 500mm. In all respects it meets all my expectations as a in-flight bird lens.

What's wrong with it? No question, it's heavy. This lens attached to a F5 makes a great killer tool whether for shooting fast moving birds or defending yourself from envious adversaries. Holding the combo at eye height for any length of time is a strain. After a full day, my arms are sore. I solved this problem by using my monopod. Though it's not as steady as a tripod, a monopod is much more flexible and isn't much of a encumberance in action photography. Mostly I view monopods less as support tools than something to relieve the strain of carrying such a heavy piece of kit. As well, the direct connection between the lens and monopod--the tripod collar--isn't the most smooth design I've seen. Essentially the tripod collar is removable--nice feature though I never use it since I'm rarely shooting without it attached to something. It's designed as a clamp that surrounds the lens body. Unfortunately, lens rotation isn't smooth when the tripod collar is loose. Despite the collar's poor design, it does perform better than others on lenses like the 300mm f/4 AF-S or even the 80-400 f/4.5-5.6 VR. Both of these follow a minimalist design and barely keep their lenses from vibrating on tripods. That's not a problem with the 80-200 f/2.8 AF-S if the collar is locked down.

How does the lens perform with a teleconverter? The TC-14e is a perfect match with the 80-200 f/2.8 AF-S. I don't see any image degradation when using this tele. The TC-20e is also acceptable though there's a clear reduction in contrast and sharpness when using it. I state this because it's definately noticeable but acceptable. Auto focus speed with both teles is great. You almost can't tell there's a tele on your lens. A 160-400mm f/5.6 AF-S is great. Does it match the quality of the 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR? I don't know since I've never used the latter lens. Does it work for my type of photography? Sure does. Like I said before, it's a beast to use if your only using your arms to steady it.

How do I use this lens? Many times I cruise the roads with my longest lens--500mm f/4 AF-S--setup and ready to go in its Kinesis long lens bag in the floor of the passenger seat. My other F5 is sitting on the passenger seat ready to go with the 80-200 f/2.8 AF-S attached. Sometimes the TC-14e is attached. More often it's not. Rarely do I automatically have the TC-20e attached. Before getting my 300mm f/2.8 AF-S, I used to hike with my 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-S slung over the shoulder. I'd carry with me my teleconverters and a wide-angled lens. Without much weight, I could cover the whole range from wide to long tele. It's quite a combo. Now with my 300mm f/2.8 AF-S, I hike around with it attached to either a tripod or my monopod over my left shoulder and my 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-S with TC-14e slung over my right shoulder. All together it's about 25 pounds in gear evenly distributed across the body. I can easily stay out for hours and walk for miles with this setup.

Overall, the 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-S is outstanding. Once you build up your strength carrying such a brut--especially when combined with a F5--it's extremely flexible and mobile. And, most importantly it's fast.

Cheers

Tom

Update 7 Jan 01

300mm f/2.8 AF-S

I've just started to use a 300mm f/2.8 AF-S with my Nikon camera bodies. Compared to my 500mm f/4 AF-S, this lens is considerably smaller and easier to manuever. It weighs about 2/3d's as much at about 5 pounds. Is it hand hold able? No, not really. You still need to support his lens somehow because of its weight. Combined with the Nikon F5 it weighs in at almost 8 pounds. Is that something you want to hand hold? I don't!

Recent trips to Jasper NP convinced me to purchase this lens. I found that too often my 500mm f/4 AF-S was too much lens for the large mammals that populate the park. Many times, I found myself backing up away from the subjects because I wasn't able to get enough room to compose the images I wanted. "Too much lens for wildlife photography" you're saying. Yup, it's true there are times when you can have too much of a good thing. Remember, this only applies in areas where the wildlife are very accustomed to a human presence. In other words they aren't bothered by an occasional photographer or two.

I have found that this lens has not replaced my longer lenses. In many ways I still use my 500mm for all the typical situations. But, I've found when shooting from a car on the road that the 300mm is perfect for the job. In many instances, it's the only tool to use.

A big factor for chosing this lens is its compatibility with Nikon's AF-I teleconverters; TC-20e and TC-14e. Both are indespensible for adjusting your focal length to what you want. Sure, it's not a zoom but the quality of the 300mm f/2.8 AF-S combined with either the 2x or 1.4x teleconverter is amazing. Another big factor is this lens, two bodies, and assortment of lenses all fit into my new Nature Trekker photo backpack. I don't have to worry about lugging that 500mm around everywhere.

I do wish Nikon had it's VR technology up to speed enough to have introduced a 300mm f/2.8 VR AF-S, but alas they haven't. Instead of waiting for that dream lens, I elected to just go ahead and get what I needed. Sometime down the road I'll be getting one of those lenses.

Like any other long lens, camera holding and tripod technique are still everything. Though camera shake isn't as much of a factor with this lens as it is with the 500mm f/4 AF-S, every effort has to be made to ensure camera shake isn't involved with making your images less than sharp. I've found the smaller lens is a bit easier to totally steady the camera. This is a good thing considering the tremendous difficulties that I've had avoiding camera shake with the 500mm f/4 AF-S.

If given the choice of going with a longer 500mm over the more versital 300mm, I'd still go with the longer lens first. There's nothing like a long lens to salvage a situation with a fairly shy subject. Still, the 300mm length will find a place in my operating environment and I'm sure it can in yours.

Cheers.

Tom

Wide Angle and Short Telephoto

16 Feb 00

My lenses start with a Nikon 24 2.8 AF-D. It's not a very expensive lens but it's probably created more than 50% of my favorite images. The sharpness is excellent and any distortion is controllable for my purposes. Also, when used with a Cokin filter system, this lens starts singing. There isn't any vingetting with a Cokin P holder and the affects of a polarizer are fairly consistent. The price is unbeatable and it meets all my needs. I love it. I think it's wide enough to satisfy 99% of my landscape needs but not so wide that it becomes difficult to manage when shooting architecture. I like it. As you review my images, you'll find a lot of them taken with this lens. I can't recommend it enough.

Next in line is a 35-70 AF-D zoom. This was my first Nikon lens and compared to other high tech lenses in the category such as the 28-70 AF-S, it's fairly dated. Still, it's great where it counts and I use it as one of my workhorse lenses. It's sharp and versatile. What more has to be said? Until I bought my dedicated micro, this lens provided the most magnification I had and I used it extensively to learn those special techniques required for close-up photography. In the normal zoom range, this lens is excellent. Sure there are more technically advanced lenses out there. But, for the price and capability it's difficult to beat. The only drawback I think it really has is the front element and therefore the filter ring rotates as the lens focuses. It's a problem when you're using most filters. Even then it's merely an inconvenience.

Nikon Telephotos and Zooms

16 Feb 00

I bought the Nikon 70-180 Micro Zoom. It's touted by Nikon as the first true Micro Zoom. The importance of this statement was lost on me until well after I had purchased this lens. I got it for two reasons after much consideration, research, and review.

1) I needed a micro lens that wasn't going to kill my budget by not being versatile enough to be used for general photography.

2) I needed a lens to fill the 80-200mm range.

Moose Peterson had reportedly loved this lens so much that he replaced his then 80-200 with it. Since, I understand he's move back to using the 80-200 AF-S, which I consider a really great lens, but out of my budget, size constraints, and therefore my style of photography. The Micro Zoom is a compromise. No, it's not the fastest thing on the market. There are lenses with larger apertures, faster auto-focus, and more precise optics under micro conditions. But, no other lens brings acceptable qualities in each of these areas together into one package. Not only that, the lens is fairly small and it fits well over my shoulder when I'm shooting the 500 AF-S on the tripod. The coolest part of a Micro Zoom is you don't have to change your whole tripod/camera location to precisely compose your image. You fine-tune your composition with the versatile zoom feature without moving so much as an inch. I can't understate the importance of this kind of capability. If you don't have a micro and you're in the market for one, I highly recommend this lens.

Before I bought my Micro Zoom, I got a 180 F2.8 AF-N to complement my 35-70 F2.8. All rumors about its legend are true. I almost believe it's the sharpest, most spectacular lens in my inventory. All of the images I've taken with it are compelling and attractive. No, it's not the most flexible lens but, along with my 24 mm AF-D, it's way up there in producing highly successful images. In many ways, this lens makes up for boring subject matter with outstanding imaging and contrast. I can't stay enough about it. If I was left on a deserted island and given a choice of two lenses to use exclusively, I'd pick my 180 F2.8 AF-N as one.

My first long telephoto was the 300 F4 AF. Never did I realize the hazards of camera vibration and subtle image degradation due to technique prior to getting this lens. Without realizing it, I could compensate for poor technique by using my other lenses but my first rolls with this 300 F4 showcased several poor techniques I was using. More than once after I bought the lens I thought some of the soft images I had were related to a sub-quality 300 F4. After taking over 1000 pictures with this lens, I can say it's excellent and any problems previously experience were totally attributed to my poor technique. There's a steep learning curve required to effectively use a long telephoto lens. My 300 F4 is no exception. This experience has definitely paid dividends with using other long lenses. I've never used the industry standard for handheld bird photography, 400 F5.6, but my 300 F4 has been entirely satisfactory in this capacity. It's quick and light weight. Combined with an F5, fast flying birds are easy to get hand held shots of. I love this lens and will use it until it's replaced by an AF-S version. Unfortunately, it's not compatible with any Nikon auto-focus tele-converters. I expect that could be remedied at sometime in the future but for now, I'm restricted to not using any tele's.

My last lens is the queen of them all-my 500 F4 AF-S. Talk about needing a mortgage for a lens. It's expensive and big. The funny thing is it's much cheaper and smaller than the 600 F4 AF-S I had considered. Along with my 180 F2.8 AF-N, this lens is the best I've got. The contrast is excellent and the lens easily compensates for any inadequacies I may have created. Magnification isn't quite as much as I would want but for most of my purposes it's entirely satisfactory. Considering the alternative of spending 50% more on a lens that weights 50% more like the 600 F4 AF-S, my 500 F4 AF-S is perfect. It gets the picture and I'm not reduced to a whimpering fool schlepping it around. I'm still undecided about the quality of placing a 1.4 tele-converter on it. I've seen most of my images just oh so imperceptibly softer. I've only taken a few dozen pictures with this combination and I have made a final determination. Don't get me wrong. The images are great, they just haven't had the punch I was looking for. There could be a couple of problems. 1) my technique could be messing up with camera vibration and so on. 2) shooting wide open at F5.6 maybe too narrow of depth of field. I've been trying shooting at F8 with good results so far. Obviously there are problems with exposure at the F-stop. Despite all of the above, I love my lens and it's been a great tool. I only hope I don't drop it.