You're correct - my mistake. Using a Sigma 105, with a clutch that engages and disengages the focus ring - but does nothing else, has clouded my mind.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
80-200 AF-D vs. 70-300 G
- Thread starter MJohnB
- Start date
Thanks so much for all the input and help everyone!
I went to the store on Saturday and looked at the lens. The lens was in worse shape then I had hoped it would be. There were a few marks on the body and the glass had dust on it. I may have been able to get the dust off, but not sure. I would figure that the store would do it so maybe I wouldn't be able to get it all off. Also, the lens only came with a 30-day warranty, after that it was all on me and I couldn't return it for full price.
With all of that in mind, I've decided to pucker up and buy a new one.
I went to the store on Saturday and looked at the lens. The lens was in worse shape then I had hoped it would be. There were a few marks on the body and the glass had dust on it. I may have been able to get the dust off, but not sure. I would figure that the store would do it so maybe I wouldn't be able to get it all off. Also, the lens only came with a 30-day warranty, after that it was all on me and I couldn't return it for full price.
With all of that in mind, I've decided to pucker up and buy a new one.
I have the 70-300G, 70-300VR, and 80-200f/2.8D (two-ring non-AF-S version). A used 80-200/2.8 will cost about the same as a 70-300VR. It is a tough call if you have to choose one, but here are some factors to consider:
- My 70-300VR is sharper than my 80-200 in the center throughout the overlapping range @ f/8. At the edges, the 80-200 is perhaps slightly sharper.
- On DSLRs, there are significant, documented limitations with 80-200 auto-focus. It is generally way off at distances of less than 10', and not so good even beyond that. My earlier comment about sharpness was with careful manual focus; with AF, the 80-200/2.8 is unusably bad.
- AF-S and VR are SUBSTANTIAL improvements of the 70-300VR over the G lens. AF-S alone is worth the price of the lens, but VR is simply awesome and works very well. Of course, VR can't help with subject motion, only with camera/lens motion.
- My 70-300G is actually significantly sharper than my 70-300VR at 300mm. All of my observations about sharpness have been confirmed by friends with other copies of the same lenses. An occasional dpreviews user will provide pretty usable 300mm results with the 70-300VR, but that is a RARE exception. Don't expect the lens to be sharp beyond
220mm. - The 80-200 may offer subjective image quality benefits. Although the image is softer and lower in contrast, with PPing, 80-200 images offer very good bokeh and (of course) you have f/2.8-f/4.0 to work with on occasion.
- The 80-200 tripod collar (DON'T GET THE PUSH-PULL VERSION!) is wonderful and offers better stability with a poorer tripod. The 70-300VR cantilevers out quite far and requires very good support (although VR MIGHT make up for it a bit, VR is not recommended on a tripod).
- Either lens works well with diopters (e.g., 5T, 6T) for a cheap near-macro closeup capability.
In general, the 80-200/2.8 is fairly obsolete on DSLR bodies and the lack of accurate AF is quite a pain. I use my 80-200 only for serious SLOW shooting on tripod, where I'm willing to carefully focus manually, and also when I want to use filters, etc. It's nice to have both lenses, but I would choose the 70-300VR hands down if forced to choose because of AF-S, VR, excellent IQ, light weight, and very good contrast and color. If you have a D300 or D3 with LiveView, AF will be easier to work around (when LV tripod mode works for you).
Doug
Doug,
oooops.... correct your mistake where you swapped 70-300G and 70-300VR!
Guy Moscoso
oooops.... correct your mistake where you swapped 70-300G and 70-300VR!
Guy Moscoso
.
I recieved my new 80-200 yesterday and iam totally blown away by the quality and sharpness of this lens , i havent had time to test it thoroughly but im pretty certain i have no focus issues .
I have a D300 and D70 and this is the first time i have experienced the WOW! factor with a lens, i can highly recommend it .
(ps its HEAVY !!!)
I have a D300 and D70 and this is the first time i have experienced the WOW! factor with a lens, i can highly recommend it .
(ps its HEAVY !!!)
jbear
Senior Member
The 80-200AFS that I shoot absolutely smoked the two 70-300VR's that I used (bought the better of two and sold it last week) at every focal length and all apertures. From 70-200 the the VR lens was very good from f4 to f16, and at 300 f7.1 the the VR lens was also decent. The 80-200 was sharper through the range at f2.8 than the VR lens at any aperture or focal length. That does not mean that the VR lens isn't worthwhile, it certainly makes a for a great travel lens, and has very good AF and bokeh. It is not...in my experience...an optical match for the 70/80-200 f2.8 class of lenses. That's not what it was supposed to be anyway, so that's not really shocking.
Nancy Elwood
Well-known member
The 70-300VR is superb at 300! Technique is more the issue, even with VR. All images below taken at 300mm
--
All the best, Nancy
http://www.naturesportal.net
--
All the best, Nancy
http://www.naturesportal.net
jbear
Senior Member
I think that's a bit of an overstatement, and technique is certainly part of the equation. Capable of great images (yours are very nice)?...yes...excellent for what it was made for?...certainly...superb @300?...no (at least not from an image quality standpoint)and technique has nothing to do with that . Superb is what I would use to describe the performance of macro lenses, some fixed FL zooms, and many fast primes...not a slow, variable aperture zoom. I know a lot of people love this lens, and I like it too, but it is what it is...a good lens. Being "just good" isn't a bad thing by the way. I love my Honda...it get's me where I need to go...it isn't a Porsche and it doesn't matter how well I drive...unless there are unusual circumstances, I'm not gonna beat a Porsche in a race...that doesn't mean that I can't have fun driving it or be proud to own it.
I was talking with someone about VR and said that it wasn't important to me and when my shutter speeds get low I just use a tripod. He said that VR is better for low shutter speeds than a good tripod? Is VR that good or is this guy just talking rubbish?
If VR is that good I might have to reconsider my lenses.
If VR is that good I might have to reconsider my lenses.
Lol - the guy is talking rubbish.
OTOH there's no doubt that VR is a vast improvement when your tripod is left at home, or you're in some place where you can't or don't want to use it.
Thanks. I couldn't believe he was saying that VR is better then a tripod since he claimed to sell photos for a living. I thought it was common knowledge that VR is good, but not as good as a tripod. If VR was better, I would think that all the tripod companies would be going out of business and every lens would have VR.
PHXAZCRAIG
Forum Pro
Both can do things the other cannot. Tripod no good in a car, vibrating boat, etc. And there are times when you just don't have one with you.
VR may give you sharp pictures at 1/15th of a second. Tripod can give you sharp pictures at 15 seconds.
Tripod lets you take your own picture easier than vr...
VR may give you sharp pictures at 1/15th of a second. Tripod can give you sharp pictures at 15 seconds.
Tripod lets you take your own picture easier than vr...
If your camera doesnt have mirror lock up, then there is a range of shutter speeds that are simply unattainable. I think that those shutter speeds are between 1 half second to 1 60th sec. Those shutter speeds could be gotten by some VR lenses I think.
Unfortunately, a consumer lens with VR giveth and taketh away. It loses light by being f5.6 for most of its range then gives you more light by allowing slower shutter speeds. The unfortunate result of that can often be a nicely in focus room with a blurred face and hands, which unfortunately was the most important part of the picture.
Guy Moscoso
Unfortunately, a consumer lens with VR giveth and taketh away. It loses light by being f5.6 for most of its range then gives you more light by allowing slower shutter speeds. The unfortunate result of that can often be a nicely in focus room with a blurred face and hands, which unfortunately was the most important part of the picture.
Guy Moscoso
dizzle
Forum Enthusiast
I bought a used, non-D, push-pull version last year when I was in the market for a telephoto zoom. I hadn't even considered the 80-200/2.8 because it just wasn't in my price range. I was considering a 70-210/4 instead.
My guy at my frequented, local shop knew what I was looking for and pulled it out from behind the counter. He offered me such a phenomenal price I couldn't turn it down. I am well aware of the superiority of the AF-D two ring version particularly in the lens collar realm (I have to use an old Manfrotto tripod lens support for mine); so if you have a chance for the AF-D you're that much better off.
I have coveted this lens since the day I bought it. It is very sharp, fast, and the bokeh is like butter.
My only gripe is the weight. It's too big and heavy for a walk around lens unless you don't mind being overly conspicous and excessively cautious of your surroundings. The weight however is fully understandeable and a compromise you must accept in exchange for its performance. If you're mainly shooting on a tripod this shouldn't matter as much.
I'd suggest getting it, and keeping the 70-300G for those times that you need a lighter and more accessible telephoto.
From what I have seen, $699 seems to be a fair price (not necessarily stellar) for the AF-D; as long as it's in great condition and you're getting it from a reputable source that recognizes some degree of liability. Since it's used, you may be able to work out some sort of deal where you can borrow or rent the lens (with rental fee applied as credit in the case of purchase). This would give you ample time to check it out and fall in love.
--
Gear Listed in Profile to enable more efficient searching.
My guy at my frequented, local shop knew what I was looking for and pulled it out from behind the counter. He offered me such a phenomenal price I couldn't turn it down. I am well aware of the superiority of the AF-D two ring version particularly in the lens collar realm (I have to use an old Manfrotto tripod lens support for mine); so if you have a chance for the AF-D you're that much better off.
I have coveted this lens since the day I bought it. It is very sharp, fast, and the bokeh is like butter.
My only gripe is the weight. It's too big and heavy for a walk around lens unless you don't mind being overly conspicous and excessively cautious of your surroundings. The weight however is fully understandeable and a compromise you must accept in exchange for its performance. If you're mainly shooting on a tripod this shouldn't matter as much.
I'd suggest getting it, and keeping the 70-300G for those times that you need a lighter and more accessible telephoto.
From what I have seen, $699 seems to be a fair price (not necessarily stellar) for the AF-D; as long as it's in great condition and you're getting it from a reputable source that recognizes some degree of liability. Since it's used, you may be able to work out some sort of deal where you can borrow or rent the lens (with rental fee applied as credit in the case of purchase). This would give you ample time to check it out and fall in love.
--
Gear Listed in Profile to enable more efficient searching.
Unfortunately, my G is sharper at 300mm than my VR. From 70-240mm, the VR version is clearly superior. For some reason, I seem to have a really good 70-300G, but as far as I can tell based on IQ tests from friends and also based on photozone results, the 70-300VR is not stellar at the long end. I've yet to get a keeper beyond 240mm. For many people, it is very usable at the long end, but I'm looking only for near pixel-level sharpness, and the 70-300VR isn't there @ 270-300mm even in the center and stopped down. You can't have everything for $500; I'm not complaining!
Doug
Jestev
Well-known member
I just got the 80-200 to replace my 70-300G and it's an amazing lens. You lose a little reach that you can easily get back with a TC. It's super fast and really sharp for a great price -- get it.
--
Nikon D50/N70/N6006 - See profile for all equipment
http://www.pbase.com/jestev
--
Nikon D50/N70/N6006 - See profile for all equipment
http://www.pbase.com/jestev
Doug,
OK that makes sense now. I thought that you reversed the two because you recommended the other lens in the end of your post.
I have the G and the ED. My initial tests seem to not give any edge to the ED version. I think I have gotten used to the CA of the G lens and actually like it a little. I need some sunlight and some free time to actually test it , then get rid of the second lens. I also have used the G with a kenko TC and it isnt terrible especially if I could get it stopped down to f8. The few tries with the ED and the TC dont jump out at me. unfortunately my G itself is that ugly gray color and the ED is the normal black color.
The few shots I took with a friends 70/300 VR didnt overly impress me like I was hoping.
Guy Moscoso
OK that makes sense now. I thought that you reversed the two because you recommended the other lens in the end of your post.
I have the G and the ED. My initial tests seem to not give any edge to the ED version. I think I have gotten used to the CA of the G lens and actually like it a little. I need some sunlight and some free time to actually test it , then get rid of the second lens. I also have used the G with a kenko TC and it isnt terrible especially if I could get it stopped down to f8. The few tries with the ED and the TC dont jump out at me. unfortunately my G itself is that ugly gray color and the ED is the normal black color.
The few shots I took with a friends 70/300 VR didnt overly impress me like I was hoping.
Guy Moscoso
dizzle
Forum Enthusiast
Certainly there are benefits of AF-S, and the screwdrive AF on the 80-200 can be problematic for extreme focus changes in fast moving subjects, but I have yet to experience a moment where the AF on my 80-200/2.8 is "unusably bad".
I have also had no problems with the AF being off on subjects at distances between 10-feet and the minimum focus distance of 5'.
Might as well throw in Bjorn's comparison while we're here:
http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_03.html#AF80-200f2.8ED
http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_03.html#AFS70-300EDGVR
--
Gear Listed in Profile to enable more efficient searching.
Bob Walters
Senior Member
MJohnB wrote:
..snip.......
As for the 70-300 VR, it's a nice lens and much sharper than your G but not quite as sharp as the 80-200 and not nearly as fast. I know one thing for sure, I'd never swap my old 80-200 for a new 70-300 VR.
VR allows slower shutter speeds and so does a wider aperture, but the final results are NOT the same. Depending on the image, shallow depth of field is indispensable and faking it in Photoshop isn't as good as the real thing.
Bob
--
..snip.......
Keep looking. I bought my used 80-200 AF-D two ring last year for $650 in nearly new condition. I don't have any focus problems and the gent who says the AF is useless on this lens is simply wrong. In fact, I expected the focusing speed with my D-80 to be a disappointment, but it's really quite fast. AF-S would be nice, but I'm quite satisfied with the focus speed. Focus accuracy is good as well. You will find yourself in an entirely different world from your 70-300G.
As for the 70-300 VR, it's a nice lens and much sharper than your G but not quite as sharp as the 80-200 and not nearly as fast. I know one thing for sure, I'd never swap my old 80-200 for a new 70-300 VR.
VR allows slower shutter speeds and so does a wider aperture, but the final results are NOT the same. Depending on the image, shallow depth of field is indispensable and faking it in Photoshop isn't as good as the real thing.
Bob
--
Bob Walters
Senior Member
snip
When I bought my used 80-200 I expected sluggish focusing performance with my D-80, but in fact I'd call it surprisingly good. Not AF-S, but pretty darn good. Focusing accuracy is good too. I sell large prints where proper focus is critically important and I almost never use manual focus. Perhaps Doug has a defective lens.
Although he might prefer his 70-300 VR, I wouldn't even think about swapping my used 80-200 for a new 70-300 VR.
Bob
--
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum