would you sell 18-200 VR and 80-200 af-d

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by mood, Jul 8, 2007.

  1. mood

    mood

    Jun 27, 2007
    suburbia, ny
    to get the 70-200 VR ?
    I am mulling over the fact that the 18-200 is not great @200, while the 70/80 200 is awesome
    I have the 12-24 Tokina, 35f2 and 50 1.4
    might pick up a used 18-70 ( loved that little lens ) for a short zoom
    and eventually get the 28-70 (beast)
    or some new lens that might make its appearance

    what would you do ?
    thanks
     
  2. I won't tell you what I'd do.... I'll tell you what I did. I kept my 80-200 AF-D, which is terrific at 200mm.

    38761728.

    View attachment 104745

    View attachment 104746

    View attachment 104747
     
  3. Nuteshack

    Nuteshack Guest

    u gotta pretty good looking kit right now and wouldn't sell the 80-200 if i were u. maybe sell the 18-200 and pick up a 35-70 2.8d
     
  4. Nuteshack

    Nuteshack Guest

    lovely images, Frank ...i sure dig my 80-200 ....;-)
     
  5. I second UF and I support him with a portrait :biggrin:

    80-200 D ED @ 200mm f/2.8
    original.
     
  6. [FONT=&quot]Hi Frank,[/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]Well the final decision on what lens to get will have to be yours. All I can say is if you don't need VR or AF-S the 80-200 is equal to the 70-200vr in IQ. Also the AF-S speed of the 80-200 is only about 10-15% slower than the 70-200vr which is almost instant, so the 10-15% of instant isn't a lot of difference... ;o))[/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]And as Nute said, I would consider the 35-70 f/2.8 as this will give you the same IQ of the 28-70 f/2.8 for about a 1/3rd of the price.[/FONT]
     
  7. weiran

    weiran

    966
    Jan 2, 2007
    Nottingham, UK
    The 70-200VR is the king of zooms IMO, I disagree with Wally - the its noticably better at 200mm than the 80-200 or any other Nikon fit 70/80-200mm f/2.8 zoom. If you can afford it, need the VR and don't mind the size, then get it.

    Personally I think 28/35-70mm lens is too long on a DX crop camera to use as a general purpose lens, even if you have the Tokina 12-24 as you'd need to change lenses and in this case overlap isn't a bad thing at all. Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 would be my choice.
     
  8. I'm not planning to upgrade the 80-200/f2.8 to the 70-200VR until I have extra money. (That means that it would be around 10th on the LLD wishlist, behind more than a few very expensive items like the 200/f2, 200-400/f4 and 300-800/5.6 SigMonster.) I keep the 18-200VR for when I can't deal with a lot of equipment - such a lot of travel - and I also have a 35-70/f2.8 for a midrange zoom. And I've got a superwide zoom too. I don't find the two nominally parallel sets of equipment even remotely overlapping. (The 20-35 gap simply does not bother me at all. It sounds big, but it corresponds to the gap between 30mm and 50mm on film, hardly a big deal.)
     
  9. I sold my 70-200 and kept my 80-200. Perhaps I got a bad copy, but it wasn't even close when it came to sharpness...my 80-200 blew it away at the larger apertures. I might buy another 70-200 some day, but only if I get to shoot some sample pictures with it first. I've seen too many posts from other people who also said their 70-200 was soft when shot wide open. And I'm just not willing to gamble on getting a sharp one again.

    Good luck.
     
  10. mood

    mood

    Jun 27, 2007
    suburbia, ny
    all points duly noted
    I do love my 80-200, and it is real sharp all the way to 200
    but as nute noted in another thread, you have to keep ss @400 or up at 200 mm for that real sharpness
    I would imagine with the 70-200, you should be able to go at least 2-3 stops with the same results
    the 18-200 is a great travel/ don't know where I'm going lens...
    lately its shortcomings are bothering me....lol

    :confused:
     
  11. I've mentioned this several times, but here goes again...I love the 70-200, but if I had it to do over again, knowing what I know now, I would've kept the 80-200. I've owned 2 versions of the 80-200 (one was the push-pull version). If that's the one you have, I'd suggest upgrading to the two-ring version. Otherwise, keep the lens you have. It's a top performer and pros used them for many years and got great results with lesser bodies than are produced today. Looking at your current lineup, I'd definitely suggest a used Beast. It will fit in perfectly between the 12-24 and the 80-200.
     
  12. yamo

    yamo

    Jun 28, 2007
    Santa Cruz, CA
    Greetings... There has been some discussion of the 70-200VR and sharpness in a number of threads, so this morning I set up a test shot to check for back focus... I was happy to find my lens came pretty close to nailing the middle of the in focus range... It's hard to see in the jpeg, but the 12 on the tape measure is the focus point in the image (100% crop, ss 1.0 @ 150%)
    [​IMG]

    The thing is, this is also has my TC17EII on it making this a 340mm shot f4.8 (wide open 2.8 + 1.5 stops for the TC) ISO 100 at 1/125 sec handheld. My distance to the battery is 15 feet (I can just make out the DURACELL with my eyes from that distance). The small print is 1/16 of an inch, the small ticks on the tape measure are 1/16 of an inch (which can be seen clearly in the raw unsharpened image) at an angle which makes them about 1/32 inch.

    The VR is great. I've taken 200mm people shots at 1/30 sec that I'm happy with. I've taken many shots handheld that would not be otherwise possible (like with the 80-200) because of the VR (some of them were even good shots!). For me, for what I like to shoot, I'd choose the 70-200VR... uh, in fact I have, it's the only lens I own.

    Your mileage may vary....

    Cheers,

    -Yamo-
     
  13. Yamo... your battery has expired :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:
    ...but we needed a 70-200 with x1.7TC to make it clear... :wink:
    Good test BTW
     
Loading...