Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 vs. 70-200VR 2.8

Joined
Jun 13, 2008
Messages
634
Location
Old Bridge, NJ
I was just wondering if there is any greater differences between these two lenses than the VR on the 70-200? I own the 80-200, but i never see anyone using it :Unsure:. To lust...or not to lust? That is the question.
 
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
6,091
Location
Alberta
Iv got an old Nikkor 80-200 2.8 ED AIS. Im getting used to being called a nobody:redface: But I say " Lust not , it will grow hair on the back of your hands".
I wonder what was lost when nikon shrunk:eek: the mighty Nikkor 80-200 ED AIS 2.8 with its 86 mm front hood and 3.7 pounds of weight(1.7 k.g). to the lowly 77mm hood diameter of the VR? weighing in a mere 1.470 g . It makes me wonder if the the VR is even really 2.8? :tongue:(just kidding). But really, it makes me think that reducing the front element is the reason for the corner's growing dark on the VR version. I know its easy to fix in Capture NX2. But thats not the point.
That and I honestly beleive the new Nikkor's like the 70-200 VR with all there little sliding switches and red lettering, no depth of feild scales on the barrels, and lack of aperture rings and scalloped hood are ugly.(Sorry,IMO they are) Not to mention completly incompatible with my PK tubes and Nikon F4, F2. Dont even get started on the white Nikkor's. Thats just wrong.
So to end my rant. I wished Nikon pulled out all the stops on there next version. If it weights' five pounds and cost four grand , so be it.

Greg
 
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
962
Hi James.

I used the 2.8/80-200 AF-S for quite a while and got a chance to compare the "real life results" to a 70-200VR.

As far as I can tell, the AF speed was similar (fast), the 80-200 was a little better at f/2.8 than the 70-200 VR. The 80-200 is bulkier and less critical regarding flares and vignetting.

My conclusion: if you need a fast AF, both versions are fine.

If you need VR, there is no choice anyway.

If you can live without VR (e. g. because of shooting fast subjects like I do), the 80-200 AF-S is the better performer.

On the FX format, the 70-200 doesn't seem to be as good as on DX. Nevertheless, I've seen some excellent shots with this lens on a D3.

I think, there are issues on a very high quality level ...

Regards,

Mattes
 
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
4,944
Location
Valley Forge, PA
I made the switch about a year ago. I had the 80-200 (non-AFS) and "traded up" to the 70-200 VR. Even though I like the 70-200, I could have spent my money A LOT better on other camera gear. Don't get me wrong, the 70-200 is a fine lens, but unless you are in desperate need of VR, save the money.
 
Joined
Feb 7, 2007
Messages
4,519
Location
Suwanee, GA
I agree with Rich...I've used both the 70-200 VR and the 80-200 AF-D that I have. I like the 70-200, but it is bigger and a bit heavier. I also feel that the IQ on my 80-200 is a bit better, but maybe it's just because I use it all the time. I used mine last night to shoot softball with my D300...I use it and my 300mm all the time...

I say rent a 70-200 and try it...there are a lot of sites out there that you can rent one for a week to play around with it. That should tell you right away which one is for you as you can use them side by side.
 
Joined
Dec 28, 2007
Messages
93
Location
Florida (mostly), USA
Well James, I've asked myself a similar question many times. I have the 80-200AFD and it focuses fast enough on my D200. The IQ is the best, imo, of any lens I own. I use it in low light as well as outdoors for sports, so I can't justify trading in just to gain vr. That said, the older I get the shakier I get so maybe someday (like when a vrII version comes out). In the meantime, I just fritter away my money on other glass!
 
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
5,206
Location
Fort Leavenworth, KS
This is all good to know. I don't need VR, but sooner or later I'll need a longer lens. Looks like the 80-200 will do just fine for me and my wallet!
 
Joined
May 11, 2006
Messages
2,328
Location
Chicagoland IL
I had an 80-200 2 ring which I sold after I got the 70-200 and I can say for sure that the colors and contrast I got with that 80-200 were far superior to what I get with the 70-200. I am regretting selling that excellent 80-200 I sold but I needed a VR so that is the price I paid. I am glad though that my beloved 80-200 is with someone form the Cafe family and is being put to good use.
 
Joined
May 7, 2005
Messages
811
Location
North Carolina - Western
I have both the 80-200 f2.8 AF-D and 70-200 AF-S VR. I purchased the 70-200 to get the AF-S and VR and put the 80-200 in storage. The fact is I liked using the 80-200 more than I like using the 70-200 (too many switches to change). However, they both produce excellent images but for me, maybe the 80-200 performs better because I like using it more than the 70-200. Either lens is a good choice.
 
Joined
Jun 13, 2008
Messages
634
Location
Old Bridge, NJ
Thanks for all the input! You guys have acctually subdued the lusting in me. I guess just going to the MAAC basketball championships and shooting all sports at my college with all these pro photogs that have the 70-200VR made me think it was better. But it doesnt seem like theres much of a difference, save for 10mm and VR(which i dont need cause im 21 yrs old). Thanks a bunch!
 
Joined
Feb 24, 2006
Messages
1,864
Location
Huntsville, Alabama
I have owned both and

from an image quality standpoint, I can not tell a difference between them. They are both quite excellent and my favorites.

y 80-200 was the non AFS, and I noticed a slight increase in focus speed with the 70-200, but not super-significant. I developed good technique with the 80-200, and used a monopod for low-light. I think the 70-200 VR looks cooler with its hood. The VR feature of the 70-200 has allowed me to now hand-hold in the same sitrutions, but did not provide any drastic improvement for my shooting.
 
Joined
Jul 28, 2006
Messages
1,120
Location
Myrtle Beach, SC
wow

this is a good to know coming from 70-200 owners, i guess if i purchased one i could save quite a bit considering 80-200s are going for < $500 on the used market :)
 
Joined
Jun 27, 2007
Messages
6,727
Location
So Fla
my old 80-200 AFD IQ was just as good as my 70-200, but had to keep the SS at 1/400 or better to handhold
the 70-200VR I could down to 1/125
on a tripod, the same
thats the only difference I saw...YMMV
 
Joined
Apr 5, 2008
Messages
2,847
Location
Middletown, NY
I own the 80-200. I had the 70-200 for a short test time. I happen to like what the 80-200 renders over the 70-200. Even though the 70-200 may be sharper, something about the older 1990 lenses that just give more bite, nicer color or something that is APPEALING.

mike
 
Joined
Dec 21, 2007
Messages
308
Location
Phoenix, AZ
For those of you looking at the 70-200VR you might want to wait. It seems that this much beloved lens produces a horrible vignetting problem when used on D3 or D700. I think there will soon be a flood of used 70-200's popping up for sale and the lowly 80-200 will become the standard (at least until Nikon comes out with an updated one). My prediction?, a great many gently used 70-200's at very good prices.

Who knows, maybe I'll trade my 80-200 AF-D that clunks perfectly in all the right places for a pristine 70-200VR plus cash.
 
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
4,944
Location
Valley Forge, PA
For those of you looking at the 70-200VR you might want to wait. It seems that this much beloved lens produces a horrible vignetting problem when used on D3 or D700. I think there will soon be a flood of used 70-200's popping up for sale and the lowly 80-200 will become the standard (at least until Nikon comes out with an updated one). My prediction?, a great many gently used 70-200's at very good prices.

Who knows, maybe I'll trade my 80-200 AF-D that clunks perfectly in all the right places for a pristine 70-200VR plus cash.

I use my 70-200 with my D3 all the time. The vignetting issue is a non issue. Horrible it is not. When compared to the other things we do during processing our shots, the SLIGHT vignetting is easily fixed in NX in less than a minute. So I don't foresee D3 or D700 owners pitching their 70-200s to go back to the 80-200. Sorry to disappoint you :)
 
Joined
Dec 21, 2007
Messages
308
Location
Phoenix, AZ
I use my 70-200 with my D3 all the time. The vignetting issue is a non issue. Horrible it is not. When compared to the other things we do during processing our shots, the SLIGHT vignetting is easily fixed in NX in less than a minute. So I don't foresee D3 or D700 owners pitching their 70-200s to go back to the 80-200. Sorry to disappoint you :)

That's good to hear! Since I don't own a D3 or D700 it's a non-issue for me and something owners of FF cameras will have to deal with.

My own personal take on it from images I have seen with a D3 and a few from the D700 using the 70-200 is what I would call horrible vignetting.

To each his own, just like taste it appears vignetting is subjective.
 
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
3,808
Location
Massachusetts
Real Name
David
I have owned 2/80-200 AF-D's and 1/70-200 AF-S. I had an 80-200, sold it for the 70-200 then sold that for another 80-200, I just liked the AF-D better. (since sold that for the 50-150 I have now). I have also used but not owned an 80-200 AF-S.

If you don't need fast acquisition you don't need AF-S, they will all track the same.
If you don't need VR, don't bother with the 70-200. If you need to shoot at 1/100 at 200mm then VR is great.

The image quality of all 3 are great.
 

Latest threads

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom