1. Welcome to NikonCafe.com—a friendly Nikon camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

70-200 f2.8 VR or 80-200 AFD

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by swmlon, Jul 1, 2008.

  1. Hi all,

    i am sure this question has been asked to death yet here i am asking the question.

    My 85 1.4 right now represents the longest lens i have with my D3 and would like to add a tele-zoom in the 70/80-200 (obviously) range. I will be using it predominantly for sports and weddings.

    I am just wondering if the 70-200 is worth the extra money. I initially believed it did since the VR function will help overcome the slight shakes i get when my technique sometimes lets me down. However, since the D3 is outstanding in low light situations, surely increasing the ISO and thus the shutter speed will negate the need for VR. or is it better to have the VR and shoot at a little lower ISO. (sorry if that didnt make any sense, i cant think of any other way of phrasing it)

    as far as i have gathered, optically they are equal in all respects (or have i been decieved?)

    thanks in advance for all comments.

    shing
     
  2. The focus of the VR version is what makes it worth the dollars. I have owned both and wouldn't go back to the 80-200.
     
  3. I concur, the 70-200VR can be held at very slow shutter speeds thanks to the VR and the smaller size and sharpness of the lens makes it a winner.

    AM
     
  4. cleoent

    cleoent

    Dec 21, 2007
    San Jose, Ca
    i concur too, if you're choosing between 70-200 and 80-200 AF-d the choice is easy, if you have the cash get the 70-200.
     
  5. davidzvi

    davidzvi

    Apr 30, 2005
    Massachusetts
    David

    I've owned 2 80-200 AF-D lenses, 1 70-200 AF-S VR, and my second shooter has the 80-200 AF-S.

    Since you added weddings, get the 70-200. Yes you can bump the ISO to get faster shutters, but you want to slow it down to balance any flash and ambient light. Also you almost always want the lowest ISO possible.

    The difference in focus speed between the AF-S and AF-D versions is there but not that big a deal on a D200 (the body I had at the time) and on a D3 I really think you'd be hard pressed to notice (I tried them on a D2x).

    If you are talking about the AF-D version and not the AF-S version of the 80-200. The 80-200 AF-D is by far the smallest and lightest. The AF-S version of the 80-200 is the heaviest of the 3.

    80-200 AF-D 45.9oz, 7.4in. Long
    80-200 AF-S 54.7oz, 8.15in Long
    70-200 AF-S 51.9oz, 8.5in. Long
     
  6. On my D300, I had checked out a 70-200 for a short time. I already have an 80-200. I happen to like the color rendition from the 80-200 better.

    I just don't think that the 70-200 does it like this. They are not mine:

    http://www.pbase.com/slater/folklife06
     
  7. drjiveturkey

    drjiveturkey Guest

    I had the 80-200 AF-S for about a 3 weeks then ran into a great deal on a 70-200 VR so sold it off. Couldn't be happier. I never ran any head to head test, but I'm happy with the performance of both and love the VR especially when panning. I came from canon so I'd been spoiled with USM and IS.
     
  8. Haven't used the 70-200, but I have an 80-200 AFD. It's a great lens for the money. I don't use it low light much, but for sports I think it's great... sharp and fast focusing enough on my D200.
     
  9. 70-200 is longer and heavier than the 80-200 D.
    Probably not the deciding factor however.
    Fred
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.