80-200 F2.8 or 70-300VR?

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by ultimind, May 16, 2007.

  1. ultimind

    ultimind

    990
    May 13, 2007
    Cleveland, OH
    I thought I was sold on the 70-300VR for an all-around telephoto lens, but I'm beginning to have second thoughts after having played with both the 80-200 F2.8 (the version right before the AF-S one) and the 70-300VR in a store.

    Having not owned either lens, I can't say from experience that the faster glass would outweigh having the VR functionality. Any thoughts or opinions about these two lenses? The F2.8 would make for more dramatic, shallow depth-of-field pictures, but it also wouldn't be stabilized.

    Thanks!
    David
     
  2. genehsu

    genehsu

    594
    Apr 15, 2007
    Seattle
    So what's your question? Different lenses for different purposes. Get both. I did. :biggrin:

    I'm use the 70-300 for travel/hiking and the 80-200 for indoor/sports.
     
  3. I second you Gene.
     
  4. ultimind

    ultimind

    990
    May 13, 2007
    Cleveland, OH
    Which should I go for first? They're in the same price area... the 70-300VR being a little cheaper.
     
  5. IMHO you should try 70-300VR first. It's an amazing lens.
     
  6. ultimind

    ultimind

    990
    May 13, 2007
    Cleveland, OH
    Has anyone found the 70-300VR cheaper than $479 in the US?
     
  7. Zachs

    Zachs

    884
    Feb 25, 2006
    NC
    What do you need it for? The really are two completely different lenses with totally different purposes.
     
  8. ultimind

    ultimind

    990
    May 13, 2007
    Cleveland, OH
    Pretty much anything. It would be the lens that extends my focal reach beyond 18-70mm that D70 is normally attached to.

    I've not really owned any serious zoom lenses... just primes ... so I'm not really clear on what you mean when you say they have entirely different purposes.
     
  9. genehsu

    genehsu

    594
    Apr 15, 2007
    Seattle
    I'd say go for the 70-300 first. Then you'll figure out if you have a need for the 2.8.
     
  10. Zachs

    Zachs

    884
    Feb 25, 2006
    NC
    I agree, go with the 70-300 first.

    since you're a prime guy, maybe try out the Nikkor 180 f2.8.

    Get the 70-200 / 80-200 if you find yourself shooting sports or portraits.
     
  11. Last edited by a moderator: Mar 15, 2017
  12. ultimind

    ultimind

    990
    May 13, 2007
    Cleveland, OH
    My biggest obstacle is that I shoot all different kinds of subject matter... portraits, landscapes, macro, wildlife, street candids, family stuff, etc. This lens would mainly be used for the wildlife but it would be nice to cover multiple bases with it as well.
     
  13. GKR1

    GKR1

    Apr 19, 2007
    San Diego
    I would go for the 80-200 and a 1.4TC if you need the 300mm.
     
  14. ultimind

    ultimind

    990
    May 13, 2007
    Cleveland, OH
    These seemed to have dried up on eBay. Affordably atleast... About 2 years ago, I saw one pop up for $160 buy it now. I missed it by about 30 seconds. Someone had snatched it about 10 minutes after it got posted.
     
  15. headgear

    headgear

    59
    Apr 6, 2007
    Minnesota
    I am in the same position, trying to decide between a new 70-300VR and a used 80-200 2.8 and possibly a 1.4TC. My current set up is a D50, 18-70, and a 85 1.8. I am looking for a telephoto zoom to complete my kit. I am a not a pro-only recently gotten into the DSLR realm to shoot family events ,kids indoor and outdoor sporting events, and to do some wildlife. I was almost ready to pull the trigger on a 70-300Vr from B&H when I started to investigate the 80-200 2.8. I really like the images that my 85 1.8 gets me in low light and I am thinking the 80-200 may give similarly pleasing images. I know-I should quit looking at these forums and just buy one and go out and start shooting but I want to make the right decision!
     
  16. nbmro

    nbmro Guest

    headgear, maybe this could help
    after loooong comparisons on the internet, many reviews read and wandering many forums I finally bought the camera in my signature with the kit lens
    from day two, I was again on the world wide web looking for a tele zoom (does this surprise you? :smile:)
    at that moment, there weren't VR options for 55-200 or 70-300, and also I delayed my decision from other reasons.
    I like very much the kit lens for landscapes outdoor shots in the daylight, but I can't forget that it is kinda slow.
    so this was a problem to consider before buying the tele zoom.
    in December I bought my second lens ever, nikkor 50/1.8. WOW, what possibilities opened up. I could take indoor photos of my little girl in the evening without using the flash, just upping the ISO.
    so, in the spring, when I was again on the internet searching for the perfect tele - in the meantime, 70-300 vr and 55-200 vr were on the market - I already had fewer products to choose from. I mean only large aperture zooms. more expensive, but also more adequate for me.
    I finally choose the sigma 70-200 for HSM and because it is regarded as one of the best sigma lenses. also, because it is roughly half the price of the nikkor 70-200 vr :smile:

    so, start shooting, but look carefully for your next purchase. I hope my example can help you
    good luck with your search!
     
  17. SteveHo

    SteveHo

    43
    May 4, 2007
    Orlando, FL
    I've used both the 80-200 and the 70-300vr...before using the 70-300 I was sure that I needed/wanted the 80-200. After using the 70-300 vr for a few weeks I am going to buy it...a great all purpose lens. I have the 50 and 85 1.8 primes I can use indoors and for me the extra reach indoors hasn't been an issue yet. BTW I used the 70-200 vr for a week and if I could afford it I would probably get it...although it is a bit long and heavy for a walk around lens...having both the 70-300 and 70/80-200 would be great.
     
  18. Jeff Lee

    Jeff Lee

    May 16, 2006
    Oregon
    The 80-200 f2.8 will give you better family shots. The shallow depth of field will give you shots more "impact". A KenkoPro 1.4 works very well with the 80-200, while you lose a stop, you certianly don't lose any real world sharpness, color, or contrast.
     
  19. weiran

    weiran

    966
    Jan 2, 2007
    Nottingham, UK
    Personally I'd go for pro quality glass and f/2.8 aperture over VR any day.
     
  20. Dave

    Dave

    Feb 7, 2007
    Suwanee, GA
    I'd have to agree with this...I"m seriously thinking about picking up the 80-200 (have a line on an AF-S model) and getting rid of my 70-300VR, or just keeping it for my wife.
     
Loading...
Similar Threads Forum Date
Does clearance price of ZF 135 f2 imply Otis 135 is coming? Lens Lust Aug 7, 2017
Differences between the 28 f2 and 28 f2.8 AIS Lens Lust May 9, 2017
Where is the 200 f2 thread Lens Lust Mar 23, 2017
Nikon 35 f2 D problems Lens Lust Jul 17, 2016
Are Any Teleconverters Compatible with Nikon 70-300VR? Lens Lust Jun 23, 2013