Nikon 80-200 vs 70-200

Ok another question concerning Nikon lens. I want either the 80-200 f2.8 or the 70-200 f2.8vII. I have gone to the reviews on each lens on the bhphoto web site. I realize the price of the 80/200 is 1/2 the price of the 70-200. I also realize the 80-200 is built like a tank, produces as sharp images as the 70-200 and that it (the 80/200) does not have VR.

With all of that said...what should I do. Wait to save up another grand plus and get the 70/200 or get the proven 80/200 and start great captures now?

any and all comments, especially any one who has either owned or use both lens, will be greatly appreciated.

Noel

If you plan to spend over a grand and is on DX I'd recommend the 70-200 VRI; otherwise VRII. Lot of 80-200 AF-D owner including myself have mis-focusing issue at 200mm f/2.8.

Agree with above poster - 70-200 VR1 used would be the best you'd need for DX. But things to consider...

1) Do you need really fast AF? If so, you want the 80-200 AF-S or one of the 70-200VR's. If you can get by with pretty fast AF, the two ring 80-200 AF-D will do. If AF speed isn't an issue, even the one ring (push pull) 20-200 AF-D will suffice.

2) Do you need VR? If yes, then of course get one of the 70-200's.

3) Do you want to be able to use the lens with teleconverters? The 80-200 AF-D's will not AF with Nikon TC's, you'd have to use a Kenko TC for that. If you want to AF with Nikon TC's, you'll need an AF-S lens - either the 80-200 AF-S or one of the two 70-200's.

4) If you are shooting FF/FX instead of DX, the 70-200 VR2 is probably the only one of these that has really good corners on FX.

I agree with all that M Katz has stated and will add one item that is an added feature with AF-S. Focus Override...

I've used my 80-200 AF-D F/2.8 now for 5 yrs and have grown tired of its slower focus speed especially when shooting Air Shows and having the lens hunt from infinity to focus limit and then back to subject distance. I like the Focus A/M dual control. I also had a very small amount of issue with BF that I counldn't correct on my D200.

M Katz said:

Agree with above poster - 70-200 VR1 used would be the best you'd need for DX. But things to consider...

1) Do you need really fast AF? If so, you want the 80-200 AF-S or one of the 70-200VR's. If you can get by with pretty fast AF, the two ring 80-200 AF-D will do. If AF speed isn't an issue, even the one ring (push pull) 20-200 AF-D will suffice.

Click to expand...

The focus speed of the VR1 is noticably faster than the 80-200, but not earth-shattering.

M Katz said:

2) Do you need VR? If yes, then of course get one of the 70-200's.

Click to expand...

Not yet sure how VR will help, for Air Shows w/ shutter speed of 125-400, I think it may help. haven't yet had the chance to practice enough.

M Katz said:

3) Do you want to be able to use the lens with teleconverters? The 80-200 AF-D's will not AF with Nikon TC's, you'd have to use a Kenko TC for that. If you want to AF with Nikon TC's, you'll need an AF-S lens - either the 80-200 AF-S or one of the two 70-200's.

Click to expand...

I currently use a Kenko 1.4x with the 80-200 and it seems to not impact IQ to any degree. I would like to get the little extra reach of the TC-17eII (only AF-S)

M Katz said:

4) If you are shooting FF/FX instead of DX, the 70-200 VR2 is probably the only one of these that has really good corners on FX.

Click to expand...

I don't plan on going to FX so I didn't factor this in at all.

I did get a Factory Demo 70-200 AF-S VR1 with a 1 yr Nikon warranty (Cameta Camera) and have added 3 yrs to that. (Mack for $29.95 so if I never use this resource - no real $$$ lost)

Also I like to shoot a lot wide open @ 200mm - 80-200 worked will within it's known focus quirks. 70-200 seems to be OK

80-200 f2.8 @ 200mm



70-200 f5.6 @ 280 (kenko 1.4x)



--
-MKrause...

http://www.pbase.com/kramerkrause

Long time viewer and pbase supporter...

If you "realize the 80-200 is as sharp as the 70-200VRII" than I suggest you rent a 70-200 and try it. If you still think they are equal in IQ, you might not need such a lens at all. Maybe a Sigma 70-200 would do, or a 70-300VR and save some real money.

All others who have used both conclude that the 70-200VRII is one of the best lenses produced and in another league.

Do not buy any lens or camera based on reviews by owners. They are highly biased and often by people who do not know how to evaluate what they are writing about.

The internet is bursting with bad information and unsupportable opinions with occasional islands of relevant information. You have to use it yourself to know if it satisfies you. Your criteria is different than that of other users.
--
Stan
St Petersburg Russia

I've had a few of the 70/80-200 F/2.8 lenses from Nikon.

First off - there is no doubt that the 70-200/2.8 AFS G VR2 is the best of the bunch, no question at all. It's slightly sharper than the others, but more importantly, it has better contrast and "draws" a more lifelike, three dimensional image than any of it's predecessors.

Now - the far bigger question is if it's worth the stretch. Can't answer this one for you - you haven't given us enough information.

I view lenses as more important than bodies and as long term (5-10 year) investments, so lens that is a bit better but a grand more is what I'll go with (if I can afford it) since over 10 years that grand isn't that much extra per month. I'm also very, very picky about image quality and realize that to reach the technical goals of the craft of photography that I need to maximize every step I can - the sum of a multiple subtle improvements here and tehre add up and takes me where I need to go, and lens performance is a large part of that.

But many folks don't need all of that - and many folks would be far better off getting a used 80-200/2.8 for relatively cheap; they'll still be getting a sharp lens (none of the 70/80-200 lenses are dogs - they're all at least "very good"), and they can use the money they saved on other things they need (better tripod, take a trip to actually use the gear they spent the money, take a class, etc0.

-m

I have a 80-200 push-pull and the first 70-200.

Without tripod I prefer the push-pull. With push-pull, I allways know where I have the zoom, and where the limits are. With the 70-200 I have to change my grip for zooming from one end to another, so for me, this is a real pain to use hand hold. The push-pull-80-200 doesn't have tripod mount, so on tripod the 70-200 (or 2-ring 80-200 with tripod-mount) is better.

The AFS is of course faster on autofocusing. For manual focusing I prefer the one ring push-pull, focus and zoom without changing grip.

VR doesn't help me much, so I don't miss it on my 80-200. And on tripod it has to be switched off.

If you shoot portraits or other non moving or slow moving objects you want the VR in those focal lengths.
David

NCHinote said:

Ok another question concerning Nikon lens. I want either the 80-200 f2.8 or the 70-200 f2.8vII. I have gone to the reviews on each lens on the bhphoto web site. I realize the price of the 80/200 is 1/2 the price of the 70-200. I also realize the 80-200 is built like a tank, produces as sharp images as the 70-200 and that it (the 80/200) does not have VR.

With all of that said...what should I do. Wait to save up another grand plus and get the 70/200 or get the proven 80/200 and start great captures now?

any and all comments, especially any one who has either owned or use both lens, will be greatly appreciated.

Noel

Click to expand...

nirvana0001 said:

If you plan to spend over a grand and is on DX I'd recommend the 70-200 VRI; otherwise VRII. Lot of 80-200 AF-D owner including myself have mis-focusing issue at 200mm f/2.8.

Click to expand...

Niot less than 617,902 80/200/2.8 AF/AF-D have been sold sine Nikon introduced this lens in 1987.
I've never read of mis-focusing issues in any professional review of this lens.

Most users tell they are quite satisfied with this lens, including AF accuracy (Of course AF-Dis not thunder-fast).

But every time a question is asked about this lens here, the same handful of people comes in to warn against the same alleged 'issue', i.e. it would backfocus at 200 mm and f/2.8 at, or near to, the minimum focus distance .

This can be true (I did estimate 1-2 cm bakcfocus at 1.90 m focus distance) but the effect in 'real life' use of the lens for its intended scopes is simply not existing.
--
Rapick
PBase & Jalbum supporter
http://www.pbase.com/rapick
http://rapick.jalbum.net/

I bought one for $400, and besides not being able to take a tripod ring, it has been a great lens and one of my favorite. On my D700 it will autofocus fast enough, and had nice boken. Interesting fact, for shooting models with flash/strobes this lens really has a nice look especially around 100-130mm.

Oh, mine is the push/pull with ED glass.

I've been using the 80-200 2-ring for about 18 months now. It's a great lens. It's sharp even at 200mm, the AF is fast and it's well built. I use it predominantly to shoot football on a D300s. I've been happy with it and don't regret the purchase at all. However, if money were not an object, I would get the 70-200 VRII. It's a bit better in every respect and, IMO, worth the extra cost.

If you can wait (I could not), save up and get the 70-200 VRII.

--
-Dan Rode
http://rodephoto.com

... or maybe "One Touch" is the official designation?

I use it always wide open, many times with stage spotlight into the frame. Flare very well controlled. Ghosting never been a problem. I agree it shines between 100 and 135 mm where it looks like a true APO lens: no trace of CA!
--
Rapick
PBase & Jalbum supporter
http://www.pbase.com/rapick
http://rapick.jalbum.net/

Hi,

I had to make the same decission between 80-200 AF-D and 70-200 VR.

Finally, I took the 70-200 VRII, and I'm happy with the decission.

• Image quality: here I see both lenses to be more or less equal. Ok, the 70-200 might be sharper a tack, but for sure both are great if you use proper technique.

• AF: I'm tired of my Sigma 400/5.6 AF speed. As soon as you start doing animals, the AF is getting on your nervs... I know what I'm talking about

• VR: I have the 16-85 VR which was my first VR lens. However, the 70-200 is my first lens where I really love to use the VR. It's amazing what you can do hand-held.

• Converter: shall I invest in some old MF converters which are still expensive? The 70-200 and the new TC's are a great combo. Even the 2x delivers great IQ.

• I'm a do-it-once, do-it-right buyer. Ok, the extra grand hurts, but only once. I use my lenses 10 years and more, so why investing in a real old design?

As a summary, the VRII won the race. Never considered the VRI since I wanna go FX soon, and the VRI is not a bargain too.

Richard

Both of those shots are great - the turtle in particular is gorgeous!

I too have never had a focus issue at any focal lengths with my 80-200 AFD and I've shot thousands of sports images with it. It is a fantastic lens for the money and really the only reason to get the 70-200 is if you need vr. And yes I've rented the 70-200 for games too just to see.

Best,

Don

PS, yes the focus speed is "good nuff too"

Just a couple of recent shots. And yes, it's good wide open too. I can repost some of those if need be.

Edit: focus on top image is on red player...

thanks. the waiting is more difficult than eventually getting the extra money.

I was faced with the same decision a few years ago. I purchased a used 80-200 two ring for aroun $800, used it for a year, then sold it for the same amount and purchased the 70-200 VR when I could "justify" it. All of the top Nikon lenses hold their value so well that you can usually by used and sell later for nearly the same amount.
--
tswitzer

I own both however I have the super rare and desirable 80-200 2.8 AFS. I actually just did a lens test on these two today and I can tell you optically you will not see a difference. Maybe handheld in low light the VR will come in handy, other then that my AFS 80-200 is every bit as good and just as fast! If you are looking for an 80-200 I might part with mine only because my wife needs the VR with such a big heavy lens and I have to keep the 70-200. My 80-200 has been mounted to a body less than 5 times. It is probably the nicest in existence. I would take $1300 firm for it which is a steal. This lens will only go up in value given it was made for only a year and there are very few examples.

One is for the film camera era while the other is for FX era. For me, this is non issue. 70-200 VR II is it. I always say in the digital era, do not look back. If you already have the 80-200, just keep using it. if not, invest on the latest one, you'll love it.

I disagree a million percent. You can buy a used example like mine for $1,000 less or even buy a new 80-200 2.8 for $1,095 and the quality will be so damn close that you can't tell the difference. Even the VR1 can be had for $1500 if you take your time and find the right one. If you invest in a used example of one of these lenses you will likely never lose a penny on them down the road. Buy a new one, get the same IQ and lose at least $800-$1000 later. No brainer IMHO