Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
PhotoKB Home
Discussion Groups
Digital Photography
Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot Cameras
Film Photography
35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther Equipment
Photo Technique
Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique General
General Photo Topics
General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK Photography
DirectoryPhoto Clubs

Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / June 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

focus speed on the 70-200AF-S versus 80-200AF-S

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Randy Howard - 07 Jun 2006 18:06 GMT
I was in a dealer the other day, and the salesman was expounding
upon how great the newer 70-200AF-S was in terms of focus speed
over my 80-200/2.8 AF-S, which I have always thought was
stunningly good in that category.

Since I seemed doubtful, and no doubt he wanted me to upgrade,
he mounted one on a D200 body for me to try it out.  I have to
say, I was decidedly unimpressed.  It could be that the D200 has
focus problems (which I highly doubt), or it could be that it
just isn't true.  It seemed to me that the 70-200 did focus
well, but it seemed to 'glide' into focus, whereas the 80-200
snaps instantly there.  It does make more noise, as it seems to
jump into position, whereas the 70-200 seems to be smoother, but
at the price of being slower.

I'm curious what others that have used both think about this, I
was definitely not seriously tempted to upgrade based upon that
brief testing.  The dealer didn't like my response, to which he
gave up the time-abhorred answer of "Well, the pros don't agree
with you".

Signature

Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those
who have not got it."  - George Bernard Shaw

Thomas T. Veldhouse - 07 Jun 2006 18:55 GMT
> I'm curious what others that have used both think about this, I
> was definitely not seriously tempted to upgrade based upon that
> brief testing.  The dealer didn't like my response, to which he
> gave up the time-abhorred answer of "Well, the pros don't agree
> with you".

Even if it is a little better, is it good enough to justify the large outlay
in cash for the difference you may never be able to enjoy?  Of course, it
depends upon your need and your ability to utilize it.

Signature

Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE  34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

Randy Howard - 07 Jun 2006 22:03 GMT
Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote
(in article <epadnYbFbf-UjhrZnZ2dnUVZ_uudnZ2d@giganews.com>):

>> I'm curious what others that have used both think about this, I
>> was definitely not seriously tempted to upgrade based upon that
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> in cash for the difference you may never be able to enjoy?  Of course, it
> depends upon your need and your ability to utilize it.

That's just it, it didn't seem like it was even on par with the
older lens to me.

Signature

Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those
who have not got it."  - George Bernard Shaw

 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.