Frank from AZ
Veteran Member
Anyone have experience with these two lens? Is the newer VR version worth almost twice as much? Any feedback appreciated.
--
Frank from Phoenix
--
Frank from Phoenix
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Nikon 80-200 2.8 D vs 70-200 VR 2.8
- Thread starter Frank from AZ
- Start date
N
Negative287
Guest
I haven't used the 70 - 200 VR but these shots were taken with the 80 - 200 ED D f/2.8
I ended up selling the lens because it was too heavy to reasonably use without VR on most occasions and constantly using a monopod was just not convenient.
'The only real currency in this bankrupt world is what we share with each other when we're being uncool.' -- Cameron Crowe
I ended up selling the lens because it was too heavy to reasonably use without VR on most occasions and constantly using a monopod was just not convenient.
--
'The only real currency in this bankrupt world is what we share with each other when we're being uncool.' -- Cameron Crowe
Paolo Pizzi
Veteran Member
I used to have an 80-200 (ED, two rings) and never quite liked
it. It wasn't very sharp fully open at 200mm and it was very
prone to ghosting. The 70-200VR is so much better in all
respects, the upgrade is definitely worth it. If you don't have
an 80-200 and you are not willing to spend the $1,500 for
the 70-200VR, I strongly advise you to consider the Sigma
70-200EX HSM over the Nikkor 80-200.
------------------------------------------------
'Everything should be made as
simple as possible, but no simpler.'
(Albert Einstein)
- Equipment list in profile.
Michael Berman
Well-known member
I loved the 80-200 f2.8 for 10 years, I then got the single ring zoom after I got the D100, then 2 weeks later the 70-200 came out. I just got a 70-200 a few weeks ago. The 70-200 is a very different lens, it is longer, but thiner at the camera mount. the 80-200 I had was not the "s" type, the 70-200 is "s" and is much faster, and it looks sharper. It "feels" much better, is it worth the money?
Well, Is there any thing you will be missing if you get the lens or is it just money that will go into a bank and then go to your wife or kids??
MJB
Well, Is there any thing you will be missing if you get the lens or is it just money that will go into a bank and then go to your wife or kids??
--
MJB
There are two distinct differences between the 2 and that is VR and Autofocus speed. It is hard to handhold the 80-200 at slower speeds because of the sheer size of it. The VR allows you to handhold at even slower speeds. The worth is solely up to you. If handholding at slower speeds and a quick autofocus is unimportant to you, then the 80-200 will suit just great. I have the 80-200 AFD. I did not upgrade to the 80-200 AFS when it came out. The VR and AFS on the 70-200 is what tipped the scales for me.
Mel
Mel
-I dont exactly agree with paolo refering to the 70-200 sigma , I've had it about 2 years ago quite good I sold it with the n80 and now that i have the D70 I am looking for a 7- 8--200. I took some tests of the 80-200 ED - compared it with the sigma - the nikon is a little heavier but big difference witht the build and the 80-200 offers amzing sharp, beautiful color, contrast and is quite fast focusing ,even at f2.8. The sigma is too soft at wide open to about 4 get but quite sharp at 5.6 and it tends to hunt at low contrast -low light conditions , I wouldnt even think twice in favour of the 80-200 nikor ,especailly as the there isnt much of a difference price wize . I havent tried the vr but I agree that these lenses are too heavy for my liking , anyway, and the vr must be a very essential element in a lens of this calibre. BTW I found the 70-300ED nikor very good , in fact quite comparable to the 80-200 at 100 around200 at f8 with regard to sharpness , although I think the 80-200 has a little more contrast , the 80-200 is very sharp even at 2.8
avis
--------------
I wouldn't say its "difficult" to hand hold. I do it all the time for hours at Track & Field events.
The only real drudgery is the thing hanging around your neck. It does tire my neck.
But when I'm actually shooting, its no big deal to hold it. I actually find the weight to be somewhat of an advantage to hold the camera steady.
Frank from AZ
Veteran Member
I currently shoot the Sigma 100-300 4.0 EX, which can double as an emergency anchor, and my current 80-200 Tokina AAFX 2.8 likewise appears to be machined of solid block steel. I do use a monopod for both a majority of the time. Does the VR really work as advertised? Or is it a marginal improvement hyped by marketing?
Frank from Phoenix
Pentax *ist D
--
Frank from Phoenix
Pentax *ist D
RogM
Veteran Member
I agree that the 80-200 isn't so hot wide open at the 200mm setting, but from what I've seen the 70-200 isn't either. Either lens is likely to be a disappointment to someone expecting prime lens quality at the long end, they simply will not perform like a 180mm f/2.8 or 200mm f/2, both lenses designed to be used wide open.
Romantic warrior
Well-known member
I had 2 rings 80-200/2.8 and now 70-200/2.8 vr.
70-200 is the best lens in his class in term of quality, 80-200 is the best for his price, good lens and well built! If you love quality buy 70-200, if you love price-quality buy 80-200, Nikon is a name, if you want to sell the lenses (i am refearing to 80-200) you will lost less money then other brands!
Vr works, 3 stops, silent wave is fast, even not as I thought ....what to say if you dont want to spend much money 80-200 is a good lens!
RW
70-200 is the best lens in his class in term of quality, 80-200 is the best for his price, good lens and well built! If you love quality buy 70-200, if you love price-quality buy 80-200, Nikon is a name, if you want to sell the lenses (i am refearing to 80-200) you will lost less money then other brands!
Vr works, 3 stops, silent wave is fast, even not as I thought ....what to say if you dont want to spend much money 80-200 is a good lens!
--
RW
Paolo Pizzi
Veteran Member
Well, I know for sure that the 70-200VR is sharper than the
80-200 and so is the Sigma 70-200EX. If you want to spend
less than $1,000, the 80-200ED is no match for the Sigma
and if you want to buy the 80-200 AF-S, you might as well
spend a few hundreds more and get the 70-200VR, which
is substantially better.
------------------------------------------------
'Everything should be made as
simple as possible, but no simpler.'
(Albert Einstein)
- Equipment list in profile.
Paolo Pizzi
Veteran Member
Now you'll tell me you have never noticed any ghosting
in the 80-200...
So, you think the old, cranky and noisy "screw type" AF is
actually better and faster than Sigma's HSM?
Guess what, the 70-200VR is LIGHTER than the 80-200
and so is the Sigma.
Oh, interesting, now the 70-300ED is better than the
Sigma. That explains a lot...
------------------------------------------------
'Everything should be made as
simple as possible, but no simpler.'
(Albert Einstein)
- Equipment list in profile.
Paolo Pizzi
Veteran Member
Come on!! That thing is a turkey!! The Sigma beats it to a pulp.
The ED is simply obsolete, the AF-S is waaaay to expensive and
I don't understand how anyone can possibly buy that instead
of adding a few hundreds and getting the 70-200VR.
You guys are brand zealots, screw Nikon if someone else offers
a better lens for a more reasonable price.
------------------------------------------------
'Everything should be made as
simple as possible, but no simpler.'
(Albert Einstein)
- Equipment list in profile.
Greg Gebhardt
Veteran Member
--
There is nothiong wrong with the 80-200AF-S. Been using this and the other two original AF-S lens for years when I got my D1. I consider the 80-200 to be one of Nikon all time best.
But, I have owned the 70-200VR for about 3 months and I must say it is as sharp and has as good color and contrast as the 80-200. PLUS, I get more "keepers" with the 70-200VR. The VR really works, I mean really works.
Greg Gebhardt in
Jacksonville, Florida
http://www.pbase.com/greggebhardt
Romantic warrior
Well-known member
It is not true the Sigma beats the 80-200! And when you sell it, it is always a Nikon, much value......I will never buy expensive no brand lens....I save some money now, but I lost when I will sell!
Anyway it is my pov and you should respect the turkey!
Ciao
RW
Anyway it is my pov and you should respect the turkey!
Ciao
--
RW
There are two answers to "is it hard to handhold". I would agree with your answer. It is no big deal in holding it and shooting using moderate to fast shutter speeds like you would when you are shooting outdoors under the sun like you explain.
That, said, when you get to lower shutter speeds, it can be difficult to hold the lens steady because of the shear size and weight of it.
Mel
That, said, when you get to lower shutter speeds, it can be difficult to hold the lens steady because of the shear size and weight of it.
Mel
Paolo Pizzi
Veteran Member
Yes, it is. I used to have the 80-200, I own the 70-200VR
and I have extensively tested the Sigma. The Sigma is no
match for the 70-200VR but it beats the 80-200 to a pulp.
The 80-200 is an old lens and it starts to show its age. It
shows an unacceptable ghosting problem and it's soft when
fully open.
Check the Sigmas on EBay, used lenses sell for almost as
much as new ones. All these new people with the D70
are looking for the best bargain and most of them want
the Sigma.
I had already figured that, you will keep buying Nikon no matter
how bad it is. Don't worry, there's a lot of people like you. It's
just the wrong attitude if you really care about photography.
And you should respect my pov, which of course you don't...
Let me guess, you have NEVER tried the Sigma, right?
Yet, you know that it's not as good as the 80-200.
Interesting.
------------------------------------------------
'Everything should be made as
simple as possible, but no simpler.'
(Albert Einstein)
- Equipment list in profile.
Dorcas Perry
Leading Member
I recently purchased the 80-200 2.8 and I love it! I shot this at 200, hand held.
Mike in Fla.
Leading Member
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum