07-19-2011, 08:23 AM
[quote name='TheChris' timestamp='1311060010' post='10143']
I had the AF-D 80-200mm f/2.8 as well as the AF-S 80-200mm f/2.8. I hate to say but the AF-S was optically clearly superior, especially with the Kenko TC. And the AF-S 80-200 is supposed to be about as good as the 70-200VR. I wasn't very satisfied with what I got from the AF-D 80-200mm despite being a brand new lens. I sold it very soon after I bought it.
Christian
[/quote]
I wonder why Nikon has chosen AF 80-200mm D over AF-S 80-200mm ... Optics were changed after AF-D and tripod collar became removable... Maybe something with the AF motor in lens, or to prevent internal competition with the new 70-200mm VR.
But between AF-S and AF-D of 80-200mm, I would definitely choose the AF-S version (if I could find one).
Serkan
I had the AF-D 80-200mm f/2.8 as well as the AF-S 80-200mm f/2.8. I hate to say but the AF-S was optically clearly superior, especially with the Kenko TC. And the AF-S 80-200 is supposed to be about as good as the 70-200VR. I wasn't very satisfied with what I got from the AF-D 80-200mm despite being a brand new lens. I sold it very soon after I bought it.
Christian
[/quote]
I wonder why Nikon has chosen AF 80-200mm D over AF-S 80-200mm ... Optics were changed after AF-D and tripod collar became removable... Maybe something with the AF motor in lens, or to prevent internal competition with the new 70-200mm VR.
But between AF-S and AF-D of 80-200mm, I would definitely choose the AF-S version (if I could find one).
Serkan