Quick Test Nikon AF Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D (2 Touch)

Decided to do a quick "window" test of my recently acquired (used) Nikon AF Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D. My second so called "pro" zoom lens, the other being the Nikon AF Nikkor 20-35mm f/2.8D.

Test totally unscientific, hand held. Nikon D300 in Aperture Priority, ISO200, Picture Control D2x Mode 1, 12-bit raw, batched converted and resized to 1024 width using Photoshop Elements 6.0.

Oh the comments are based on overall impression, not pixel peeping; i.e. looking at the photos in quick succession rather than examining the micro details.

10 April 2010 - did some field test with this lens. See AF 80-200mm f/2.8D Revisited.

Performance Wide Open and 1 Stop Down

First the extremes: 80mm and 200mm, at f/2.8 to f/4

Click on photo for 1024 width photo.

80mm f2.8

80mm f/4

At 80mm, there did not appear to have much improvement in resolution/ sharpness/ contrast going from f/2.8 to f/4. More actual photo tests would be needed to confirm this.

200mm f/2.8

200mm f/4

200mm f/5.6

At 200mm, the improvement in resolution/ sharpness/ contrast going from f/2.8 to f/4 was significant! Less so with 105mm and 135mm but still visible (you'll have to take my word for it). It begs the question if I should avoid using 200mm f/2.8... Will need to test this out in actual photo situation.

Performance at f/5.6

Next I figure that most time (other than those low light situations) the lens would be most used at f/5.6. So a series of photos at f/5.6 were taken for the marked focal lengths.

80mm f/5.6

Hmmm, nice and sharp.

105mm f/5.6

135mm f/5.6

200mm f/5.6

Yes yes yes...

So the lens is really nice and sharp throughout its range at the most frequently used apertures of f/4-f/8 (take my word for it, or you do your own tests). At f/2.8, there is some softness noticeable at all focal lengths except 80mm, so more test are required to see if I can live with the softness wide open.

Conclusions

With this limited, unscientific, hand-held test, the lens came off with almost flying colours. I will need to see if 200mm at f/2.8 is so weak that I cannot use it... Hopefully not.

Epilogue

I had always wanted to see what the diffraction effect was but had never tested it. In field situations when shooting macro both UW and topside I had used f/16 and f/22 quite generously, and had not seen any visible drop in sharpness. Well, I had nothing to compare with.

So I did a short test and gone all the way to f/16 on several focal lengths.

200mm f/11

200mm f/16

My my, the difference is evident! There is indeed lost of sharpness at f/16.... Well not that I am likely to use f/16 on a tele-zoom...

Similar results are seen in the other focal lengths.