In article
>I'm thinking about picking up an 80-200 f/2.8 AF Nikkor and picked
>one up to test through NPS the other day. It was a BEHEAMOTH.
>Well, I am used to using shorter fixed focal lengths like the 85 and >105. I shoot models primarily and rely on the 35 for the >maneuverability. I need a longer focal length lens... and my choice
>is now a 180 2.8 or an 80-200 2.8 zoom.
>So the question is - an 85/180 combo and slide back and forth a
>little and keep the format's maneuverability OR lose some of the >maneuverability in order to compose without moving! [...]
If you already have an 85mm, I guess the options are still 85/180
vs 85/80-200. If you work in studio, or other unchallenging lighting
conditions, the 80-200mm f4 AIS or 70-210 f4 E (MF) are both more maneuverable than the f2.8 zoom, and are excellent performers (a tad
shy of the great 80-200 f2.8, however). A friend and I recently had
the same question as you do, but we both owned both the 80-200mm f2.8
and 180mm f2.8 Nikkors. He shoots landscapes, animals, and people
while traveling. I shoot receptions, speakers, and weddings (among
other things that don't require using these lenses). He sold the
80-200mm, since it was too bulky to travel with, and too awkward
on a tripod for verticals (a Really Right Stuff 8008 plate and a big
ball head solved that problem for me). I sold the 180, since it never went into the bag instead of the 80-200mm - I need the quick angle changes for my work that the zoom allows. My guess is that you would
be happier with the 180mm if you have time to change lenses, so that
you could keep the 35mm compactness and ease of use. Feet do wonders
as an alternative form of "zoom lens". I am too often limited in my
movements when using longer lenses, so the zoom works for me.
Hope This Helps