Jim, I have had both these lenses and consider the 70-300mm ED to be
more 'cost-effective'. The 80-200mm was certainly sharper through most
of the range and wide open, but produced increasing pincushion
distortion as it approached 200mm wide open. Also, I found the color
and contrast to be superior with the 80-200mm lens throughout the
ranges, over the performance of the 70-300mm ED.
Of your options, I would suggest No. 3; take it back to the shop and
insist they get it right - or take it back for full refund. It is,
after all, under warranty. You can do very well on your trip with just
the 70-300mm ED tele', I would think
-Chris Stanford
--- In NikonLenses%40yahoogroups.com">NikonLenses
yahoogroups.com, Jim Legg <legg_jim...> wrote:
>
> You suspect correctly Chris,
>
> The lens is is the last AFD model and less than 12 months old. It
is still under warranty.
>
> Jim Legg
>;
> Chris Stanford <stanford4110...> wrote:
> Jim, which model of the 80-200mm f/2.8 do you have? I
suspect you have
>; the AF-D two-ring model with the tripod collar rather than the more
>; expensive AF-S model with the silent wave motor.
>
> Regardless, I would most certainly expect any Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8 to
> outperform your 70-300mm ED by 'a country mile'!
>
>
> --- In NikonLenses%40yahoogroups.com">NikonLensesyahoogroups.com, Jim Legg <legg_jim> wrote:
> >
>; > Hi All
> >
> > I've been reading posts on lenses with interest for some time,
> particularly on the 80-400VR and teleconverters. I'm an enthusiast
> with a bit too much money to spend it seems. I have a 12-24, 24-120VR,
> 80-200 f2.8 and 70-300ED for use on a D100 and D200. My dilema stems
> from the fact that I cannot get results as good as I would expect from
>; the 80-200. I purchased this lens expecting an improvement in
> sharpness over my existing lesnes.
> >
> > I first noticed soft images when compared to the 70-300 and
> testing showed that it was back focussing ( focussing on a point
> beyont that expected) at all focus distances. It could be focussed
> manually but even then it did not exceed the results from the 70-300.
> >
> > I sent the lens and the D200 in for evaluation/repair. The Nikon
> service agent here in Melbourne, Australia said that there as nothing
> wrong with the lens but they adjusted my camera to compensate. The
> lens now seems to focus OK at longer focal lengths but still back
>; focusses at closer distances (2 to 3 metres).
> > The images I get are still no better than those from the 70-300.
> >
> >
> > Questions
> >
> > 1. Is there a possibility that my technique is the reason for no
> improvement in the 80-200 over the 70-300.
> >
> > 2. Should the 80-200 perform better than the 70-300.
> >
> > 3. Should I take it back to the service agent and insist that they
>; get it right.
> >
> > 4. Should I cut my losses and consider another lens.
> >
> > In July, my wife and I are taking a trip to Canada and Alaska a
> considerable journey from here in Australia. I want to be sure I can
> make the most of the photographic opportunities that present
> themselves. I'm concerned at the softness in my images at longer focal
> lengths I'm getting aqt the moment.
> >
> > Any advice/suggestions on these issues are most welcome
> >
> > Jim Legg
>; >
> > Melbourne
> > Australia.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address.
> >
>;
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address.
>
.
