Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Nikon 80-200mm AIS, AF-S or AF-D?

Jeremy Wiles

Jeremy Wiles

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 17, 2008
Messages
601
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Location
West Palm Beach, FL
Website
www.kingdomworks.com
Which of the version of the Nikon 80-200mm do you prefer: AIS, AF-S or AF-D? What are most people going with?

I'm leaning towards the AF-D version because it focuses about 80% as fast as the AF-S and costs and weighs less.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/80-200mm-history.htm

Thanks for the advice.

Jeremy
 
AIS is a push-pull, which means you'll have issues with follow focus units and mattebox, and usually is not recommended. Same with the ED AF.

The AF-D is the go to recommendation around here. Great optical quality and light weight, not to mention very affordable. The only issue I've found with them is that they tend to "shift" when racking focus, especially changing directions of focus. This isn't breathing, but more of an up and down position shift.

I have the AF-S. this one is usually not brought up because it's big and heavy and less convenient than the AF-D. It's also more expensive, even thought the optical quality is identical (from what I hear). However, it's the only one my camera shop had, and I only buy lenses I can try out in person. However, the first thing I noticed was that the AF-S (mine at least) does not do the image shift that the AF-D lenses I tried did (3 of them). That said, I often think that the smaller lighter lens would be very nice to have.
 
I have the AF-S, used to have the AF-D.

AF-S has faster autofocus on a DSLR -- but AF-D has focus stops, felt smoother for manual focus (maybe just my sample). If there's a difference in image quality, it was indescernible to me.

As I'm a filmmaker and not a stills photographer, I miss the AF-D.
 
Hi, Nils. I used these lenses mostly for still photography, but I also used them for motion imaging and I never found any issue focusing manually on either, so I cannot shed light on your observation from firsthand experience. However, I do believe the optics on the AF-S had a nicer color and contrast rendition values than the later AF-D sample. Of course, that's only my personal perception based on the samples I owned. That been said, the build on the AF-S is much better. It's built like a tank. An absolute pleasure to operate.
 
I own and use the AIS and AF-S versions of the 80-200. Optically they are both good (as is the AF-D), and I've been quite happy with the footage results from both on RED One. This said, I think I'll have to second Tico's opinion that the AF-S holds a color and contrast edge over the AIS. I don't have an opinion on the AF-D, but I do know that stills photography reviewers of all three lenses rate them all pretty close. In short, all three are very good lenses.

I use both my Nikon 80-200 lenses with screw-on filters, no matte box, and no follow focus. My rigs are kept lightweight for mobility. As Tico mentioned, the AF-S is bigger, and built solidly. My AF-S has a lens collar and I use it with 12" ET 15mm rods. I wouldn't use it without rods - IMO it would stress the mount too much.

On the other hand, my AIS is push/pull, about 1.5 pounds lighter, has no lens collar, and I use it without rods of any kind - with no problems to the mount. I use the AIS version when mobility is a premium, and the AF-S version when the shooting is more stationary.
 
Steve Gibby said:
I use both my Nikon 80-200 lenses with screw-on filters, no matte box, and no follow focus. My rigs are kept lightweight for mobility.
Click to expand...

Steve,

I'm glad you brought this up. I shoot a lot of handheld and was looking for a very lightweight mattebox, perhaps the Cokin Z-pro series. I was actually going to buy one yesterday and decided to research this a little more. Here is the Z-pro series: http://www.cokin.com/ico15/ico15-haut.html#z

How does using screw-on filters compare to the larger frame filters? I'd rather use the screw-on's, but I don't want to sacrifice quality.
 
Jeremy Wiles said:
Steve,

I'm glad you brought this up. I shoot a lot of handheld and was looking for a very lightweight mattebox, perhaps the Cokin Z-pro series. I was actually going to buy one yesterday and decided to research this a little more. Here is the Z-pro series: http://www.cokin.com/ico15/ico15-haut.html#z

How does using screw-on filters compare to the larger frame filters? I'd rather use the screw-on's, but I don't want to sacrifice quality.
Click to expand...

In all my production of any kind me and my crews only use a MB and FF when it will specifically benefit the shooting process, and when we are more stationary for our shooting. We don't stubbornly use a MB and FF so we can appear to be "real cinematographers". The bottom line is the images we get. If a MB and FF will enhance the images we are shooting, then we use them - if not, we don't.

Specifically for hand held work, any MB and FF will add bulk and weight, thus decrease the mobility of the rig commensurately. When you gain something you give something up. Lose bulk/weight and gain more mobility, and conversely add bulk/weight and lose mobility. Again, we analyze the best lens and camera accessory choices for each production (or portion thereof) and choose what to use accordingly.

We've had very good results on RED when using good, multi-coated screw on filters with my Nikon, Canon (150-600), and RED (18-50 & 300) lenses.

Hope this insight helps you...
 
Steve Gibby said:
In all my production of any kind me and my crews only use a MB and FF when it will specifically benefit the shooting process, and when we are more stationary for our shooting. We don't stubbornly use a MB and FF so we can appear to be "real cinematographers". The bottom line is the images we get. If a MB and FF will enhance the images we are shooting, then we use them - if not, we don't.

Specifically for hand held work, any MB and FF will add bulk and weight, thus decrease the mobility of the rig commensurately. When you gain something you give something up. Lose bulk/weight and gain more mobility, and conversely add bulk/weight and lose mobility. Again, we analyze the best lens and camera accessory choices for each production (or portion thereof) and choose what to use accordingly.

We've had very good results on RED when using good, multi-coated screw on filters with my Nikon, Canon (150-600), and RED (18-50 & 300) lenses.
Click to expand...

Steve,

Thanks for the advice. Especially in my case, where mobility is a major factor, I think the screw-on filters is the best route to take. I've come to trust your advice. thanks again.
 
Hi Jeremy,

I´m using the AF-D (IF-ED, turning zoom and Focusstop at close focus and infinity). It´s very well build, stunning picture quality and quite light. It´s really a bargain, and if you would like to use it mainly with RedOne, and not for shooting still photography with high speed AF, I don´t see the need for the AF-S version.
Cheers,
Marc
 
I found a good deal on a used 80-200 AF-D, but the "EE" tab is broken off on it. Do you know what an EE tab is and if I need it to be able to mount the lens on the Red?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top