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 or 80-200

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by Milkman, Mar 31, 2007.

  1. Well this is even a bit more complicated than that. I don't use my 70-200 much and obviously it ties up alot of money. I am thinking about selling it and getting the 80-200 AFS or AF version. really only because I would like to have the extra $ to purchase some other camera gear. I have altered my TC 14e and TC 17e so I believe I could use them on the older model if needed.

    Anyone have any thoughts between these?
  2. ZBaum

    ZBaum Guest

    Buying a used 80-200 AF-S saves little money over the 70-200, as it costs about $1000-1100 used. If you don't use your 70-200 much, why would you bother buying another lens in the same range? Why not sell it, and buy something that you'll really use a lot?
  3. 1FASTZ


    Jan 25, 2006
    Cincinnati, OH
    If you sell your 70-200 for say $1300 and buy a used AF-S for $1000 or $1100, I don't think you're saving that much but it's all relative to what one thinks is a lot. If you were going to go with the AF-D 80-200 then I think you would be saving quite a bit more.

    If you don't use the lens much, why not look at the 18-200 Nikon. Since it's such a wider focal range, you would likely use it more often and it would free up quite a bit of money. B&H had them in stock earlier this morning for $749. Just some food for thought.
  4. simsim


    Oct 10, 2006
    Took the words right out of my mouth.

    If anything, you'll use it less than the 70-200 VR.
  5. Used 80-200s are going for that much money? I assumed that they were in the $900-$950 range. Wow.

    If that is the case than there really isn't much reason to sell the 70-200.

    The problem is I have far too many lenses. I have the 85 and the 135 primes and they are wonderful and seemingly lighter than the 70-200. Of course they aren't AFS and focus slower.

    I may go down even farther to the 80-200, but then I assume that it will work with my alterred TC's? Can someone confirm this?
  6. I had a 70-200mm VR I sold to free up some cash (ended up paying for Christmas). If you want to get a tack-sharp fast-focusing lens in this range for alot less $$ then consider the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX APO D HSM or DG HSM (not the newer Macro). I sold my 70-200mm VR for $1300 (a $300 profit to begin with) and picked up a Sigma 70-200m f/2.8 EX APO D HSM for $500 here at the Cafe. It's just as sharp as the Nikon, focuses nearly as fast, and has very similar and color and bokeh. It's also much lighter, easier to handle, and better balanced on my D50.
  7. Thanks Stephen. Do you know if it will work with Nikon TC's? I had the 120-300 and I loved it except that it didn't work with the nikon TC's
  8. I recently paid less than $900 for mine, but I've seen them on KEH in the $1000-1100 range. Just have to be patient and look around.
  9. I doubt it would work w/ the Nikon TCs. It doesn't work with my Kenko TCs... Sigmas only really work well with Sigma TCs. The reason is Sigma doesn't license the Nikon mount, they reverse-engineered it. This leaves some incompatibilities with TCs that use a licensed or oem mount.
  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.