gear

THE DIGITAL SOAPBOX OF ANDY CLEAVENGER

80-200mm f2.8 AF-S

CONTACT::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Email:  graycard18@gmail.com

become a fan:  my facebook page

This is a beautiful lens, but a waste of money.

If you already own one and are looking for validation that you purchased the right lens then I can at least offer you my concurrence that this is truly an excellent performer. What makes this a waste of money in my eyes is the fact that the 80-200mm 2.8 AF D is optically just as good as this lens for half the price.

That means that the only significant advantage this lens has over the cheaper lens is a Silent Wave motor. This was a big deal to me when I was still accompanying my wife to weddings and my camera (an N90s) had an auto focus motor that could wake the dead. Since I didn’t have the foresight to see affordable digital technology coming in less than two years, I bought this thinking that I would use it with my N90s for years to come. This is probably the biggest equipment related regret I have.

These days Silent Wave motors aren’t as necessary. Modern cameras have MUCH quieter auto focus motors. Using the 80-200mm 2.8 AF D on a D70 or D200 is actually quiet enough for a wedding ceremony despite its lack of a Silent Wave motor. Plus it’s not quite as big as the AFS lens which means it’s easier to pack and take with you. For that reason we almost never use this AFS lens anymore. It now serves only as back up in case my wife’s 80-200mm 2.8 AF D were to suddenly take a nose dive.

If you don’t already own one of these my advice is to skip it. Go check out the 80-200mm 2.8 AF D. The AF D is a bit smaller, a bit lighter, a LOT cheaper, and optically just as good.