Nikon 80-200 mm AF-S no longer produced?

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by ar-fr, May 2, 2004.

  1. ar-fr

    ar-fr Guest

    Is this true?
    ar-fr, May 2, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. ar-fr

    Mxsmanic Guest

    It's still in the catalog. Where did you hear this?

    FWIW, the 80-200 AF-S is a fabulous lens. I'd hate to see it go. It's
    one of the very nice trio of AF-S zooms: 80-200, 28-70, and 17-35 (all
    superb lenses).
    Mxsmanic, May 2, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. ar-fr

    Henry Guest

    probably as 35mm film is dying

    Henry, May 2, 2004
  4. ar-fr

    Matt Clara Guest

    That's the silliest thing I've heard yet today--the lens works with digital
    cameras, too!
    Matt Clara, May 2, 2004
  5. The following site shows it as discontinued:

    Trying to get straight marketing information out of Nikon can be
    difficult. Neither that site nor Nikon USA shows the 70-180mm
    as discontinued, yet it has all but disappeared from the channel.
    Michael Benveniste, May 2, 2004
  6. ar-fr

    Henry Guest

    yes, it might work but does not produce the required optical image you need
    the G range for that

    Henry, May 2, 2004
  7. Matt was wrong- *that* was the silliest thing heard yet!
    Martin Francis, May 2, 2004
  8. ar-fr

    columbotrek Guest

    Curious that the 80-200mm AF-D which has been discontinued is absent
    from the list. Could it be that the site has its wires crossed on that
    issue? IMHO, if you can get a line on the "D" version for do it. Its a
    Nikon bargain. Great optics and I have not found the focusing speed
    of the "D" to be an issue for me at all. (F100 body) The whirring sound
    has scared off a bird I was stocking up on once. Wiser, I place the
    lens in MF mode if I think that the sound will make a difference.
    Although once the shutter releases the game is up anyway but I got one
    frame at least. I wish I could afford 600MM for birds but I am just not
    into birds that much.

    "How can there possibly be liberty and justice for all, when, in the
    name of justice, people claim rights to income, food, housing,
    education, health care, transportation, ad infinitum? We can't. Positive
    rights to receive such things, absent an obligation to earn them, must
    violate others' liberty, by taking some of their income without their
    consent. They are really just wishes, convertible into benefits for some
    only by employing the government to violate others' rights not to have
    what is theirs taken." --Pepperdine Professor Gary Galles
    columbotrek, May 2, 2004
  9. ar-fr

    Mxsmanic Guest

    And digital is so marvelous and advanced that lenses are no longer
    Mxsmanic, May 2, 2004
  10. ar-fr

    Mxsmanic Guest

    You've been reading too many marketing brochures.
    Mxsmanic, May 2, 2004
  11. ar-fr

    Bowzer Guest

    Stop now before you really embarass yourself.

    Bowzer, May 2, 2004
  12. ar-fr

    Henry Guest

    try selling a non G lens in 2 years wont...........

    Henry, May 3, 2004
  13. ar-fr

    Henry Guest

    in fact try selling any 35mm film gear in 2 will for

    Henry, May 3, 2004
  14. ar-fr

    Skip M Guest

    Too late!
    Skip M, May 3, 2004
  15. ar-fr

    Mxsmanic Guest

    Why would I want to sell a non-G lens?
    Mxsmanic, May 3, 2004
  16. ar-fr

    Mxsmanic Guest

    That's what people have been saying for almost a decade.
    Mxsmanic, May 3, 2004
  17. ar-fr

    Jerry McG Guest

    FWIW, I've had 2 of these lenses and think it's a piece of $#!t.

    As a stricvtly action-oriented optic it's fine, focuses fast and is 2.8.
    However, for landscape shooting it's a disaster.omething in the lens formula
    promotes fringing, at near-infionity focus it's internally unsharp at any
    small aperture and worse, the tripod collar can't be tightened enough to
    stop mirror slap induced blur. I HATE this lens and am glad to see it
    replaced by the 70-200 VR.
    Jerry McG, May 4, 2004
  18. ar-fr

    Matt Clara Guest

    That's odd--I've never heard this before, and find no such problems with my
    80-200 f2.8d. Last summer at the East Lansing Art Festival I saw a 4 foot
    by 6 foot shot of a field of tulips taken with this lens on Fuji
    Velvia--from 10 foot away it looked sharp as could be. I couldn't get any
    closer than that, as his booth was packed to capacity.
    Matt Clara, May 4, 2004
  19. ar-fr

    Matt Clara Guest

    Of course the real irony here is that it's digital cameras that experience
    the depreciation he speaks of the "moment you walk out the door," and not
    film cameras. By his logic we could therefore conclude that digital is
    Matt Clara, May 4, 2004
  20. ar-fr

    EDGY01 Guest

    It has been my understanding that the AF-S 80-200 was discontinued shortly
    after Nikon introduced its replacement,--the G-lens and VR lens,--70-200 f/2.8
    AF-S. That lens is quite nice from what I understand but the price is anther
    quantum leap above the former AF-S. The non-AF-S 80-200 (with the best
    designed tripod mount of them all) was a bit of a problem for me. I had it
    fail TWICE during my time with it. It was the first time in my 30-plus years
    of Nikon shooting that I had a Nikkor fail. There is apparently a clutch
    mechanism within the focusing sleeve of that lens that has several parts (like
    bands) that will suffer metal fatigue and no longer allow you to focus it
    manually. It works fine in AF mode, but when you do to override it (instead of
    going through a hunt and seek routine) it fails. Everyone should check their's
    out periodically. After the first failure I sent it back to NY for repair. It
    worked for around 2 years and then,--the same problem again. It went in for
    repair locally and then I sold it, fully functioning, on eBay. I figured that
    any late-model lens that can fail twice in about 2 years from very light use is
    no lens for me.

    The AF-S 80-200 is a very fine functioning lens, but there is some light fall
    off apparent when your background is the sky, or something evenly illuminated.
    It's not so bad that I would make the leap to the 70-200. I still want a lens
    that I can put on my F2/T or my F3/T and it will function. the G-lenses are
    not good news for a retro-camera user.

    dan Lindsay
    santa barbara
    EDGY01, May 4, 2004
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.