Reading mode: Light Dark

70-200 2.8 VR vs. 80-200 2.8

Go to last post
0dradek said:
Trying to decide between the 70-200 and 80-200. Anyone who has experience with both lenses on D700, do I get $1,000 more functionality out of 70-200?
Click to expand...
I have both the 1. version of 70-200 and the 1. version of 80-200af (push-pull without tripod mount), but no D700. I have a D300 as my primary body.

On freehand, I prefer the push-pull. VR doesn't give me any value anyway.

On tripod, I prefer the one with tripod mount, or a much lighter prime.

If you think of using it with Nikon's TC, you need an AFS-lens (or modify the TC, but that will not give you AF), either the 70-200 or the AFS 80-200
 
Hi,

80-200 AFS is without any doubt sharper then 70-200 VR I; this is visible especially in the golden mean parts when focusing closer, i.e. 2-4 meters.

As to the VR, I have noticed that its functionality on 70-200 v1 is somehow strange and it is really unreliable within the 1/30 - 1/100 sec. range, which is exactly the range of shutter speeds the 70-200 VR II (but the Canon 70-200 IS too) works without any faults.

If I were you, I would buy the 80-200 AFS, but beware of the AFS motor problem.

Cheers,

G.
 
Geo_rge said:
If I were you, I would buy the 80-200 AFS, but beware of the AFS motor problem.
Click to expand...
I have recently bought an 80-200 AF-S to evaluate for use on a D700, as I do find the near focus and corner sharpness of the 70-200 VR I a bit of a problem at times. So far I am impressed with it, but the 70-200 is definitely sharper at distance at the wider apertures. By f/5.6 I cannot see any difference, except that the 80-200 has sharper corners at the long end. Both tend to vignette badly on FX and wide apertures. I was not aware of the AF-S motor problem, though. Can you perhaps provide more info on that? Is it a rapid-fail type problem, or a case of if you have a lens for a few years that hasn't failed, it isn't that likely to? All 80-200 AF-S specimens are now used and probably more than 8 or 10 years old, and it is sometimes difficult to know just how hard they have worked in their lifetime.

To the best of my knowledge, the 80-200 uses the same AF-S drive as the 17-35/2.8 and 28-70/2.8. I have the 28-70, though not 17-35, and would consider buying a spare part if it is one that is likely to fail and would be impossible to obtain in a few years from now, as all three lenses are out of production. If one doesn't need to use it, there will always be another lens owner in distress somewhere.

Would appreciate your thoughts.

--
Stay hungry. Stay foolish.

If you have trouble falling asleep, visit my gallery at http://www.pbase.com/dorff/
 
Both are fast & tack sharp in most situations - really depends on your needs & shooting style (very original answer, I know). Will you need to shoot hand held @ 180mm, 1/30 sec? If so, VR is for you. If not, I would go with the 80-200. Both are pretty big & heavy, and both are made well enough to use as a hammer on a construction site.

Might want to look for a used VR I if you need the VR and would also like to save some $. Yeah the VR II is slightly better, but the VR I is certainly no paperweight just because a new model came out.
 
No intention to hijack, just a quickie on the 80-200afs.

It is simply stellar on FX. My copy is tack sharp at 2.8, and stopping down cures vignetting, but does practically nothing for sharpness. What is surprising, is that it is as sharp as my 70-200VR II. The AFS only shows more vignetting, but retains longer focal lenght when focusing near.

The focusing generation is the same as the troubled 17-35 and 28-70, but there are less reports of failed af motor on the 80-200. Luck?

Last consideration: having the two lenses side by side taught me that all Nikkor's pro 70(80)-200 zooms are of excellent value and great performers. Apart from af speed of some series, most of them would be extremely difficult to tell apart. Reviews magnifies what are often very subtle differences. For me, it means that it's easy to be happy with almost any of them :-)

Lory

--

'The human race is a race of cowards. And I'm not only marching in that procession, but carrying a banner.'
Mark Twain
 
I own the 80-200mm f2.8 AF-S, which you should seriously consider. It has a fast silent motor, and is razor sharp across the board. I picked one up on Craigslist for $800. Couldn't be happier.
 
0dradek said:
Trying to decide between the 70-200 and 80-200. Anyone who has experience with both lenses on D700, do I get $1,000 more functionality out of 70-200?
Click to expand...
I've used the one-touch and two-touch versions of the screw-drive 80-200 f/2.8 ED AF Nikkor (non-AFS, no VR) with various Nikkon bodies (F4s, N90s, D1, D100, D200, D2h, N8008, N8008s, FM2n, F3hp) since 1998 or so.

The one-touch version is better when manually focusing. Otherwise the two-touch version is better since it has a tripod mount. AF speed is the same on both. Manual focus action is not as good as on a true manual-focus-only lens, of course.

Optically the lens is excellent. But I saw a lens test online comparing this lens with the latest 70-200 somewhere and the 70-200 is better optically. Though you'd never notice unless you sat down and compared test images from both at the same time.

I have noticed with the D2h that the 80-200 f/2.8 screw-drive lens had trouble focusing when set at 200mm and when focusing in its "macro" range. Focus is often inaccurate in this condition. Apparently this is a known problem and is even mentioned in the D90 user manual, for example. However, if the lens is set less than 200mm, say 135mm, then the problem goes away. I haven't noticed this problem with my other bodies ... I should check one of these days.

When focusing beyond the macro range, there's no focus problem when at 200mm or any other focal length.

The $1,000 difference is the reason I went with the 80-200 f/2.8 screw-drive instead of the 70-200. I have never used the 80-200 AF-S or the 70-200 AF-S btw.

Here's a list of all the various 70/80-200's Nikon has made over the years:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/80-200mm-history.htm
 
photomik said:
photomik said:
Try holding it still for 15 seconds. VR can't hack long exposures.
Click to expand...
That's dumb. VR was never meant for long exposures. How often do you do > 1" shots anyway?
Click to expand...
At least three photos in the past month or so ...
30 seconds: (plane landing)



30 seconds again: (plane again)



30 seconds another time: (car taillights)

 
I had several versions of these lens (except for the new 70-200 VR, I'm not interestead).

I would advise the 80-200 AF-S (only available used, at a premium price) as the best one, as IQ, etc is concerned.
Anyway, this has been quite discussed here, many times before...
 
Have owned both the 80-200mm screw drive and the 70-200mm VR. I would call the 80-200mm a very good lens, but the 70-200mm is a "magic lens," and am saving up to buy one again. Liked it much better.
--
JohnE
Some of my work is shown here:
http://www.biltmorephoto.com

 
capanikon said:
photomik said:
capanikon said:
Try holding it still for 15 seconds. VR can't hack long exposures.
Click to expand...
That's dumb. VR was never meant for long exposures. How often do you do > 1" shots anyway?
Click to expand...
At least three photos in the past month or so ...
30 seconds: (plane landing)
Click to expand...
Out of how many total shot from then? By statistics of normal shooting, way low insignificant amount. For those extreme situation, bring your tripod/monopod, whatever.
 
I also had a hard time deciding between the two, but opted to go with the 70-200 VRI. I cannot tell you how many times I was grateful to have 70mm at my disposal, as I could barely squeeze in what I was shooting - indoor action photography is my gig, and that little extra bit on the wide end has been a lifesaver.

I do not consider vignetting to be any concern as Lightroom 3 has lens profiles built-in that correct this with one click. Simply not an issue.

Most times I do not really need VR since shutter speeds are usually between 1/250 and 1/500. I always use "active" when VR is on, though, because I find that "normal" jumps around a bit at times and I end up with severe motion blur on a few shots. Using "active" has practically eliminated that problem. For me, I am very glad I invested in the 70-200.
--
K.B.
 
Out of the last 69 photos I have put up, 23 were shot using a tripod (33 percent of my project photos) with a range of shutter speeds from 1/10th of a second to 180 seconds.

The average shutter speed for a selection of 15 of the 23 tripod shots: 31.75 seconds.

I tend to use 30 seconds often 'coz it's convenient and does not require a remote release or use of T-mode.

Since it's winter time, it's usually dark when I get off work. So I've been doing a lot of night-time long exposure shots. Often with the ISO at 100 and sometimes stopped down as far as f/16 ... at night!
photomik said:
Out of how many total shot from then? By statistics of normal shooting, way low insignificant amount. For those extreme situation, bring your tripod/monopod, whatever.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top