Over the years, I’ve had many lenses that I have variously claimed to be be my favorite. My 85mm f1.4D. My Sigma 12-24mm. My Pentax 77mm f1.8 Limited. My 12″ Gundlach Radar. The Xenotar on my Rolleiflex. And so on. What’s apparent is that it’s a moving target. During the organization of my Lightroom library, I was really suprised to learn something, though. Almost 23% of the photos in my Lightroom catalog were made with a lens that has never been one of the ones I’ve claimed to be my favorite: my Nikon AF Nikkor 80-200mm f2.8D.
The 80-200 is one of the first lenses that I picked up for my D600 kit when I switched to Nikon from Pentax. I didn’t want to spend too much on a telephoto zoom until I had gotten my feet wet in Nikon-land and figured out what I wanted and needed for my photography. The 2 ring version of the 80-200mm f2.8D was reasonably affordable and seemed like a decent performer. I found one on KEH and added it to my kit.
Since then, I’ve really never found a reason to upgrade. I think about it occasionally. The new 70-200mm f2.8E really seems like an incredible lens but it comes with a comensurate price tag. Some of the Sigma and Tamron offerings are looking almost as good with a more stomachable price tag but I worry about future compatibility (Nikon likes to occasionally lock out third party lenses with new cameras). And the truth of the matter is that I can always find some part of my kit that needs an upgrade much more than the 80-200mm does. So I just keep using it.
I think the reason for that is that the lens is just a competent performer. While it isn’t flashy or superlative in any fashion, it can handle almost anything I throw at it. I use it regularly for my landscape, railroad and grain elevator work. I’ve shot portraits with it. I’ve used it as a sports lens at basketball and swimming events. I’ve used it for zoo animals. It came with me to Africa. I’ve shot events and weddings with it. I’ve done reproduction work of Amanda’s paintings with it. I’ve even paired it with extension tubes for some close-up work. It has never left me wishing that I had been using something else in any of those roles.
It’s not perfect, of course. No lens is and that is certainly true of one this old (the version I use was first released in 1997 according to Ken Rockwell’s page on Nikon’s fast telephotos). The biggest beef I have with it is that it gets pretty soft at minimum focus distance at 200mm and f2.8. That’s a situation that is pretty easy to avoid, though and the lens performs fairly uniformly at most other settings. Optimum performance seems to be mid zoom range at f5.6 or f8, which really isn’t too surprising. Other minor gripes are that it doesn’t focus very close (carrying one or two extension tube lengths helps with this), the bokeh can rarely get a little nervous (though it’s usually somewhere between neutral and good in this respect which surprises me for a zoom lens from the 90s) and the screwdriver autofocus system can occasionally be a bit laggy compared to its AFS brethren. Remember, I’ve shot basketball with the lens, though, so it’s still capable in this regard.
I have noticed that it’s starting to show its age with each megapixel increase, too. It’s not quite as good on my D800 as it was on my D600. When I rented the Z7 for a trip, the 45Mp sensor again stressed the lens a little more than the 36Mp of the D800. I’m sure Nikon will eventually bring out a ~60Mp sensor in line with the Sony a7R Mk IV, at which time the old 80-200mm will probably be pushed a little bit further. I’ve noticed that it has dealt with each resolution increase gracefully, though. It’s not readily apparent that it doesn’t belong on a Z7 or D850. One has to do a bit of pixel peeping to see that it’s not performing as well as it would on a D700 or something along those lines. Try something like the old 70-300mm VR on a Z7 and you’ll know what a lens looks like when it is hopelessly outclassed by the camera it’s attached to.
Along with competent performance in more standard lens metrics like resolution, chromatic aberration, microcontrast, etc., the 80-200mm has one neat trick it can do. This lens produces the best starbursts of any lens I’ve ever used. Find a strong point light source, stop it down to f11 and then watch what it can do:
I must not be alone in my thinking that this is a useful lens. Despite the fact that it dates back to 1997, it’s actually still in production. It’s possible to buy one of these brand new (though the cost of that makes me think that photographers looking to cash in on the value prospect of the lens would probably be best served by finding a good used copy — there are thousands of them out there). Since this lens came out, Nikon has produced the AFS 80-200mm f2.8, the 70-200mm f2.8 VR, the 70-200mm f2.8 VR II and the 70-200mm f2.8E . Only the last of those models is still in production along with the f2.8D variety. The old D lens has some staying power.
Perhaps the best way I can sing the praises of this lens is to post some work with it. Along with 23% of the whole of my whole Lightroom library, the lens has also produced a high percentage of the shots that I consider portfolio worthy. Maybe it’s time to accept the fact that my “favorite” lens is probably the one I use more than any other, even if I’ve never said so out loud.
