Help with rationalizing 80-200 2.8D AF Push-pull

I'm eyeing an 80-200 2.8D push-pull screw-drive AF that's priced right (under $300), but was a bit confused on whether it belonged in my kit (D3300 and D7100, with 55-200 VR & VRII, as well as manual fast primes (105f2.5, 135f2.8, and 180f2.8) that cover the range). I expect to use it mainly for portraits, kid's sports, and possibly for wildlife shots.

Was hoping to hear from fellow Nikonites on the following points:
- IQ on D7100: How does it compare to manual primes and the 55-200 VR? (If it is superior / equal, I might ditch the primes and the 55-200VR)
- Hand-holdability? Is the lack of VR a major weakness?
- Teleconverters: Are there any that are a good match for the 80-200? Anyone have experience pairing it with the TC-16A? What about the Kenko 1.4s that work with AF lenses?
- Any other pros / cons I should be aware of? Other lenses that might be a better fit for my needs in a similar price-range?

Thanks!

If you're patient you should be able to get a non push pull AF on ebay for 350. The push pull or the more modern version should be comparable (IQ wise) to the 180 f/2.8 you own, better IQ than 70-200 f2.8, but slower AF than 70-200 or 70-300 vrg. I have not used a tc16a on a zoom but it works really well on 180mm f2.8. The 70-300vrg will be better for kids sports (almost as fast AF as 80-400, 4 stops of VR, great IQ to 225 and good to 260) and since you have the 135 and 180 f2.8 already, you won't have an IQ reason to need the 80-200. Some folks here (and other places) really like the 70-200 tamron f2.8. If you are after indoor sports, then you might want the 70-200 tamron instead of the 70-300 or 80-200.

If you've got camera buddies in the area, then borrow a 70-210 to see how you like that. Don't buy this one on a whim because people love or hate it.

@salukfan111: thanks for the pointers and the heads up on the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8. I ended up passing on the 80-200 f/2.8D for now, mainly due to the weight (although it's at the lighter end of the 2.8 zooms in this range), duplication in the 105-180mm range, and lack of AF on the D3300. It was not without regret, as it would have covered me with good to decent glass over a broad focal range (80-200, plus 200-320 @ f4.5 with the TC-16a) which was tempting. Decisions, decisions


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I can't say anything about the push-pull version of the 80-200, but I can tell you that the IQ on the 80-200 f2.8 D lens I owned earlier did not compare to the AF-S 70-200 VR II. The D7100, if you're happy with it, is worth the improved glass.

WM

Whiskeyman said:

I can't say anything about the push-pull version of the 80-200, but I can tell you that the IQ on the 80-200 f2.8 D lens I owned earlier did not compare to the AF-S 70-200 VR II. The D7100, if you're happy with it, is worth the improved glass.

WM

Click to expand...

Thanks for the observation, it rings a bell. I've read mostly great things about the newest 70-200, but still getting over the sticker shock I saw the 80-200 push-pull AF-D as 90+% of the IQ for 20% of the cost. That's just IQ though. I'm guessing the faster AF and VR give the 70-200 a much higher keeper rate, and that's important.