It looks like you are using an ad blocker. That's okay. Who doesn't? But without advertising revenue, we can't keep making this site awesome. Click the link below for instructions on disabling adblock.
depends on what your shooting. me living in michigan, shoot mainly park, have had no need to spend +600 dollars on a telephoto lens. I am thinking about getting this with an adapter or a canon 85mm f/1.8 Im leading to this, just because I can zoom. Just tell us what your shooing, If your going to be using it alot, yeah, save up at get the canon. But for my needs, this is perfect.
Im guessing you're looking at the push-pull version. Same optics as the other 80-200s, which are very nice. The nice thing with nikon is even glass made 30-40 years ago has just as good of glass as the lenses they make today. I mean, if you have a canon body and have any inclination to shoot photos, you'll want the canon 70-200. But, if you're just doing video the nikon 80-200 could be a good choice for sure. I plan on picking up either and 80-200 + 2x or 100-300 5.6 before ski season starts.
well for those instanced, zoom hands down. the 85mm is more for portrait/interviews/specific long shots. Trust me, after using my 35mm adapter for a season, having just a 135mm prime (same FOV as 85mm on dslr) it was a huge pain trying to shoot long shots with it.
This still proves nothing. The old f4 and f2.8 push pulls were the first nikon tele zooms and were discontinued when the new internal focus lenses came out WHICH are hundreds of dollars more based on that alone. Besides that, are cheaper because the build quality is worse, the push-pull system sucks and because they were made in the fucking 60's. I could argue that the fact is has 13 elements vs 16 elements makes it a better lens too, less elements, less glass, better image.
Like someone said before, even the low end nikon G lenses with variable aperture still use the same nikon glass as the high end 70-200 2.8. There is no lower "consumer" level glass, the price of nikon lenses are based on how they are build not on the glass, unlike canon. I'm not saying the old 80-200s have a better build quality or ergonomics, im talking about the glass which when it comes to old manual lenses it was matters the most.
And thomas, you really gonna tell me I don't know what I'm talking about? Ive been throughly researching nikon glass for over a year now, I may not be an "expert" but I do know a lot about it and just because you own a 5d and think you're the shit doesn't mean you know everything either. Half of your posts related to you telling jamie that he doesn't know anything (which you are very wrong about) or how you have a full frame camera. NO ONE GIVES A FUCK THAT YOU HAVE A FULL FRAME CAMERA, ANY DUMBASS CAN BUY A CAMERA just because you think yours is cooler than everyone elses doesn't make you're smart or that you know shit about cameras.
Post something worth while if you're so fucking smart.
By that logic, every nikon lens made in a certain time period should have the same image quality because it "uses the same glass."
But beside that point, there are many different types of glass used. non-coated, coated, multi-coated, nano-crystal coating, and low dispersion elements, among others. If you by an 18-55 kit lens you're sure as fuck not getting any nano crystal elements, because the glass used in a lens depends on the price and sales demographic.
yes but he said that a cheap lower level lens is necessarily the same quality as a pro lens because they have the same optics, but i'm saying that Nikon doesnt use the same optics in all lenses. They use these coatings on certain elements, which effect image quality. I realize that they weren't using nano crystal coatings when they made the original 80-200's but my point is that the optics aren't the same quality.
Well thats what i basically said, they use different features in different lenses than they do in others. The fact is, nikon optics at all the same, unlike canon which has "better (L)" glass. Of course alot goes into what makes a lens good but IMO older nikon lenses shine even the 80-200 f4
Oh, and OP... It's plenty sharp. Remember that you're not going to be able to tell the difference between a super sharp lens and a less than super sharp lens for video use as it's not going to make a difference at the the resolution offered by 1080.
Even if you're using it for photo, it's a sharp lens so long as you can nail focus.
Marginal differences in optics won't effect HD video because 1080p is under 2 megapixels. Same reason why Canon L glass is tack sharp on the 7D but softer on a 5D mkII's 21mp image. Hence, the difference in sharpness between a $70 vintage Nikon telephoto and a new one will be practically nonexistent. The real issue are things like CA or fringing.
I would HIGHLY recommend saving up and investing in something with autofocus. Older manual focus lenses were designed to work with pentaprism viewfinders that made focusing a lot easier. You have to do with them is get a straight line to line up and you know its sharp. Modern dslrs dont have that kind of viewfinder, and as a result its much harder to get a sharp image, especially wide open. Take it from me, still shooting on a pentax k-mount 400 prime because i cant afford anything better right now, you will have VERY few keepers and a lot of out of focus shots. Its definitely worth your while to save your money and get something with autofocus to save yourself the pain of having so many shots not turn out.