In article <19970415020701.WAA00255@ladder01.news.aol.com>, mcsmith@aol.com says...

>I am considering purchasing one of the above. Any comments and
>experiences comparing the two would be useful. I'm especially insterested
>in the resolution the lenses are cable of and the overall sharpness of the
>two, when used at the same focal length of course.
>
>Also 180 F2.8 users: does this lens work easily on a tripod without a
>collar? It looks long to me to be without one.

The other responders covered this well - and I agree (at medium to long distances at the long end, the images made with the 80-200mm f2.8 AF
Nikkor are hard to tell from those made with the really top-quality
Nikkor 180mm f2.8 AF, with the exception that at f2.8, the 180 is very
slightly better, the zoom shows a slight pincushion distortion, and at
close-focus the 180 prime is very noticeably better than the zoom at
the long end at wide apertures). I sold my 180 and kept the zoom only
because I needed the zoom feature for some work I do - a friend kept
the 180 and sold his 80-200 due to the better close-focus performance.
The size and weight differences are very noticeable. The 180 on a tripod
is not a problem (at least compared with the 80-200 without a tripod
mount...;-). Flip a coin, and see if you like the result...;-)
"Hope This Helps", or, soon, very soon..., "David Ruether"...;-)