On Wed, 16 Oct 2002 01:09:24 +0100, T.P. wrote:

>OK, the 80-200mm f/2.8 is sharp and contrasty, and has very little
>distortion. The same is true of the 75-150mm f/3.5 Series E. The
>light fall-off of the 75-150mm f/3.5 Series E is bad, but so is that
>of the 80-200mm f/2.8. That's about even so far.
>
>The 75-150mm f/3.5 Series E also has superb bokeh (an exceptionally
>smooth rendition of out-of-focus elements of the shot) which makes it
>a near-ideal portrait lens. The 80-200mm has harsh bokeh at every
>focal length and is a lousy portrait lens. And yes, I have used them
>both extensively.
>
>For portrait use the 75-150mm f/3.5 Series E is a clear winner; in
>fact it is one of the best Nikon portrait lenses ever. That it is
>also a zoom suggests that its design was a unique optical achievement.
>
>In terms of ruggedness the 75-150mm f/3.5 Series E cannot compete with
>the 80-200mm f/2.8. As a Series E lens, it was never intended to, so
>it should not be criticised for lacking something that was never
>designed in. The loose zoom action is easily cured by one of several
>methods which don't involve any dismantling of the lens.
>
>In the end, you buy and use the one that you prefer for the work that
>you do. My work includes a lot of portraiture, anything up to six or
>seven sittings in a day, and I would be fired if I used a lens as
>inappropriate as the 80-200mm f/2.8. But as a general purpose
>telephoto lens (excluding portraiture) it cannot be beat.
>
>Your mileage may vary.

I agree with the above, and add: the 75-150 f3.5, while
short of the 80-200 f2.8 in both speed (2/3 stop) and
length (50mm - noticeable, but not terrible - and a TC1.4A
cures this and the combination remains tiny...;-), is FAR
lighter, smaller, and easier to use. Also, it is one of the
very few (maybe the only...) zoom that performs adequately
on the 2X TC200/201. Gee, why did I sell mine?!?! ;-)
(See: www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html.)