Results 1 to 15 of 15
  1. #1
    TPF Noob!
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Oslo
    Posts
    2
    My Gallery
    (0)
    My Photos Are NOT OK to Edit
    Liked
    0 times

    Question Purchase advice: Nikon 70-200 VRII vs Nikon 80-200 vs used Nikon 70-200 VRI

    Hello, I'm an amateur photographer with a Nikon D80 and I'm finally going to invest in a good lens. I take pictures of everything, mostly when on vacation. This time I'm looking for a medium range zoom. I'm considering the new expensive 70-200 VRII. But while reading some reviews I stumbled upon the older AF-D 80-200. At my local camera equipment shop it sells for half the price. I also came across a used 70-200 VRI also about half the price. I do have the money for the new 70-200 now, but if the difference is not noticeable I might be better of saving that money for my next lens purchase (the 14-24) As far as I can tell the main difference is the VR, and the AF speed. And I've also read the older 70-200 is not optimal for FX (could be an issue if I decide to upgrade in the future). Anyone have experience with these lenses? What lens would you recommend?
    Last edited by karlstorpet; 01-21-2010 at 06:47 AM. Reason: Tired to make the title more clear



  2. #2
    I spend too much of my life on TPF!
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Washougal, WA
    Posts
    516
    My Gallery
    (0)
    My Photos Are OK to Edit
    Liked
    0 times
    I wouldn't get the new 70-200 VR II. Nikon is having some quality control issues with it, among other things.

    Here's a couple of related threads:
    http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/p...-shavings.html
    http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/p...ead-issue.html

    If you have the money look into a 70-200 VRI. I have the 80-200 f/2.8 two-ring and it's great, but the 70-200 VRI is a little bit better optically (although not by much), plus it has VR and built-in focus motor (AF-S). Supposedly the 80-200 doesn't vignette as much as the 70-200 VR1 on FX. That's something to consider between the 80-200 and 70-200 VR.

    Optically the 80-200 is excellent, and build quality is outstanding. You really can't go wrong with it. You can get them used for about $700-$800 USD. New, about $1100 USD. I wouldn't buy it new. If you have the money for it new then I would just spend a couple hundred more and get a used 70-200 VRI.
    Dennis Hilberg, Jr.

  3. #3
    I spend too much of my life on TPF!
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Rotterdam, Netherlands
    Posts
    423
    My Gallery
    (0)
    My Photos Are OK to Edit
    Liked
    0 times
    I have both 70-200 lenses (I'm about to sell the VR I).

    The VR II: its extreme focal length shortening at close subject distances makes it a "somewhat" controversial lens. It's the obvious choice for FX bodies, though (IMO). It's also better wide open at f/2.8 and at the tele end. And, of course... the VR performance is stellar. But it's not for everyone.

    Apart from that, quality control issues are... well... an issue, as dhilberg points out. But I don't know how wide-spread these are... my lens is fine. No issues whatsoever.


    If you're a DX shooter, the old one is more than good enough, IMO. I would always opt for a lens with VR, though. But that's just me.

  4. #4
    TPF Noob!
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Oslo
    Posts
    2
    My Gallery
    (0)
    My Photos Are NOT OK to Edit
    Liked
    0 times
    Thanks a lot for the input. I have decided that I'll go for the used 70-200 VRI. Never bought anything this expensive used, hoping I'll not regret it

  5. #5
    TPF Junkie!
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    3,692
    My Gallery
    (10)
    My Photos Are OK to Edit
    Liked
    2 times
    Quote Originally Posted by karlstorpet View Post
    Thanks a lot for the input. I have decided that I'll go for the used 70-200 VRI. Never bought anything this expensive used, hoping I'll not regret it
    Personally, I would do what you're doing. The VRI is a fine lens which has been very popular. I would wait until Nikon works the kinks out of the VRII before I dropped that much money on it.

  6. #6
    Been spending a lot of time on here!
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    180
    My Gallery
    (0)
    My Photos Are OK to Edit
    Liked
    0 times
    there are responses on nikonrumors.com about how those shaving are just bumps of sorts that wont effect picture quality.

  7. #7
    I spend too much of my life on TPF!
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Rotterdam, Netherlands
    Posts
    423
    My Gallery
    (0)
    My Photos Are OK to Edit
    Liked
    0 times
    Quote Originally Posted by Mitch1640 View Post
    there are responses on nikonrumors.com about how those shaving are just bumps of sorts that wont effect picture quality.
    But it just might affect the resale value...

  8. #8
    TPF Junkie!
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    9,712
    My Gallery
    (0)
    My Photos Are NOT OK to Edit
    Liked
    204 times
    Man all the problems about the VRII are completely unfounded. Every thread I have seen is just people complaining that the lens only works like it was built by the camera gods in a remote mountain of Japan, rather than actually looks like one.

    A few shavings that are no where near the lens element or moving parts doesn't change the fact that it is the highest performing 70-200 there is.

    Quote Originally Posted by dhilberg View Post
    I wouldn't get the new 70-200 VR II. Nikon is having some quality control issues with it, among other things.
    Both threads have said they just see some shavings on threads, and the lens is otherwise completely unaffected and working fine... If I open the bonnet of my car and the engine looks dirty do I return it to the dealership?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mitch1640 View Post
    there are responses on nikonrumors.com about how those shaving are just bumps of sorts that wont effect picture quality.
    Well yeah, it's not even on an element, and if the shavings were on an element they still wouldn't affect image quality.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrLogic View Post
    But it just might affect the resale value...
    The only reason to sell a fantastic lens like this would be getting out of photography, then you get no sympathy from me . In any case it would take some quite weak negotiating skills to have the resale affected by an "issue" which makes no visible or usable difference to the lens.
    "I am always satisfied with the best." -Oscar Wilde
    Larger versions always on flickr
    Best photos in my gallery

    Proud Supporter of The Pact

  9. #9
    I spend too much of my life on TPF!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Atlanta, Ga
    Posts
    463
    My Gallery
    (0)
    My Photos Are NOT OK to Edit
    Liked
    1 times
    Good move going with the VRI. I have it and i see no need in investing in the VRII. You will be more than happy....Congrats.

  10. #10
    TPF Junkie!
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Metro Atlanta
    Posts
    1,411
    My Gallery
    (0)
    My Photos Are NOT OK to Edit
    Liked
    0 times
    Unless you are bound and determined to spend a whole buncha money on a Nikon lens, have you ever considered a Sigma 70-210mm APO constant 2.8 ?

    If you are patient, you should be able to find one for less than $300.00.

    I know there are fancier lenses out there, but this is a really nice, and fast lens, especially for the money.
    Been into Photography since 1969.

    Current Digital equipment ~


    Nikon D80, D40, Nikon 18-55mm non-VR, Nikon 55-200mm VR, Sigma 18-50mm constant f/2.8 HSM Macro, Nikkor AF 35mm f/2, Nikkor AF 50mm f/1.8, Nikkor AF 35-105mm f/3.3-4.5 Macro, tons of filters, several flash heads and tripods. My favorite camera bags are the Tamrac 610 and 612.

  11. #11
    TPF Junkie!
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    25,866
    My Gallery
    (0)
    My Photos Are OK to Edit
    Liked
    7974 times
    There are NO SHAVINGS inside of the lenses! Man, this has been yet another case of newbies making a huge deal out of something they do not understand. Nikon has published an official response:

    “The 70-200mm f/2.8G ED AF-S VRII lens features a component in the lens design which may appear to have surface pits or a rough texture when viewed through the front lens element. This rough surface appears in a very small confined area within the lens barrel and is caused by air holes remaining in the metal portion of the lens during component construction. Due to the magnifying effect of the front element this rough surface will appear greatly enlarged when viewed through the front of the lens."

    "This components function is to reduce and remove internal reflections from the lens and due to this the texture of the surface will have no effect on the lenses performance or operation. Nikon would like to assure customers that the lenses optical performance remains unchanged and that this component will not release any dust or particles into the lens itself.”

    Some photos are available on the the Flickr user's group on the subject! Flickr: The Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII thread problem Pool

    One of the better photos is this one Flickr Photo Download: DS1_6352

    which shows the edge of a lens element. What is good about this photo is that it allows people to see what the edge of a lens element looks like where it joins the edge of an inner spacer or lens barrel assembly and a strong light is shine through the lens:
    http://www.divingandphotography.com/PixieDust.jpg
    That is a Nikkor 24-85mm f/2.8~4 zoom lens

    Here is a shot of the "threads" in a new 70-200, which are magnified by the front element of the new 70-200 VR-II lens. Only, these are not "threads", these are anti-reflection baffles, designed to stop light reflection. Most better lenses use either flocking or physical baffling (ridges) to stop light from bouncing round http://www.flickr.com/photos/trick_7...l-1283774@N25/

    As for the threads people are alleging are 'missing' or 'damaged':the plastic baffling is made by a moulding process, and the "missing parts" (lol) are caused by air bubbles in the manufacturing process. In a non-moving part that does nothing except stops stray light.

    What's funniest about this ENTIRE thing is that the lens design has excellent resolution, contrast, flatness of field, low vignetting, and superior optical performance, but newbies are looking into the lens and getting worried. Why is this scenario so amusing,and yet so annoying, and so Internet-Retarded??
    Well, pick out **your** very-best performing lens, and then take it in hand and shine a strong flashlight into it from the lens mount side forward and take a look inside. If the lens is a year or two or three years old, you will probably be literally aghast at how much crap is inside the lens. Your lens. Your "best" lens.

    Then, read this article The Flashlight Test

  12. #12
    TPF Junkie!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    2,902
    My Gallery
    (15)
    My Photos Are NOT OK to Edit
    Liked
    128 times
    Quote Originally Posted by PatrickHMS View Post
    Unless you are bound and determined to spend a whole buncha money on a Nikon lens, have you ever considered a Sigma 70-210mm APO constant 2.8 ?

    If you are patient, you should be able to find one for less than $300.00.

    I know there are fancier lenses out there, but this is a really nice, and fast lens, especially for the money.
    Tamron has a 70-210 f2.8 that also goes for around $300 when they come up on fleabay.

    Then again, you can snag an af nikkor 80-200 f2.8 for as low as $500; which is what I'd recommend.

  13. #13
    TPF Junkie!
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    2,679
    My Gallery
    (0)
    My Photos Are NOT OK to Edit
    Liked
    46 times
    There are NO SHAVINGS inside of the lenses! Man, this has been yet another case of newbies making a huge deal out of something they do not understand. Nikon has published an official response:

    “The 70-200mm f/2.8G ED AF-S VRII lens features a component in the lens design which may appear to have surface pits or a rough texture when viewed through the front lens element. This rough surface appears in a very small confined area within the lens barrel and is caused by air holes remaining in the metal portion of the lens during component construction. Due to the magnifying effect of the front element this rough surface will appear greatly enlarged when viewed through the front of the lens."

    "This components function is to reduce and remove internal reflections from the lens and due to this the texture of the surface will have no effect on the lenses performance or operation. Nikon would like to assure customers that the lenses optical performance remains unchanged and that this component will not release any dust or particles into the lens itself.”

    Some photos are available on the the Flickr user's group on the subject! Flickr: The Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII thread problem Pool

    One of the better photos is this one Flickr Photo Download: DS1_6352

    which shows the edge of a lens element. What is good about this photo is that it allows people to see what the edge of a lens element looks like where it joins the edge of an inner spacer or lens barrel assembly and a strong light is shine through the lens:
    http://www.divingandphotography.com/PixieDust.jpg
    That is a Nikkor 24-85mm f/2.8~4 zoom lens

    Here is a shot of the "threads" in a new 70-200, which are magnified by the front element of the new 70-200 VR-II lens. Only, these are not "threads", these are anti-reflection baffles, designed to stop light reflection. Most better lenses use either flocking or physical baffling (ridges) to stop light from bouncing round http://www.flickr.com/photos/trick_7...l-1283774@N25/

    As for the threads people are alleging are 'missing' or 'damaged':the plastic baffling is made by a moulding process, and the "missing parts" (lol) are caused by air bubbles in the manufacturing process. In a non-moving part that does nothing except stops stray light.

    What's funniest about this ENTIRE thing is that the lens design has excellent resolution, contrast, flatness of field, low vignetting, and superior optical performance, but newbies are looking into the lens and getting worried. Why is this scenario so amusing,and yet so annoying, and so Internet-Retarded??
    Well, pick out **your** very-best performing lens, and then take it in hand and shine a strong flashlight into it from the lens mount side forward and take a look inside. If the lens is a year or two or three years old, you will probably be literally aghast at how much crap is inside the lens. Your lens. Your "best" lens.

    Then, read this article The Flashlight Test
    LOL

  14. #14
    TPF Noob!
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1
    My Gallery
    (0)
    Liked
    0 times

    Nikon 70-200 VRII vs 80-200mm

    The 70-200 VRII is a spectacular lens but for me the 80-200 just makes more sense. I seldom if ever use VR on a mid-range telephoto anyway as I use this lens on a momnopod for indoor sports or tripod for everything else. I don't use VR ever for fast action or shutter speeds longer than 1/200th. For me the question of auto focus speed is a bigger issue. While the 80-200 is not as fast as the 70-200, it seems to be about 80-90% as fast with the camera's screw drive. It is noisier however for sure. I try to make up for some of this difference with practice and being fimiliar with the sport I'm shooting so that my anticipation is improved. I also use this lens for outdoor portrait shooting ith a tripod. For walk around, this is not a lens I like to carry around at all, so for that I use a 28-300 or 70-300. So for me the 70-200 VRII while a really great lens, adds little overall capability over the 80-200.

  15. #15
    KmH
    KmH is offline
    Helping photographers learn to fish
    TPF Supporter

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    32,570
    My Gallery
    (1)
    My Photos Are OK to Edit
    Liked
    3577 times
    The thread died almost 2 years ago, but thanks for your comments. They are indeed relevent to the topic.

    Unlike this situation, many times old threads get dug up by spammers
    . . . . . . Keith . . . . . . .How Do I Use My Digital SLR?...
    Photography is at its core an attempt to represent the reality of light in a media that can’t faithfully reproduce it.

 

 

Ads

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Nikon 70-200mm VRII Problems?
    By inTempus in forum Photography Equipment & Products
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 12-13-2009, 03:55 PM
  2. Nikon 70-200mm VRII just arrived!
    By Wolverinepwnes in forum Photography Equipment & Products
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 12-02-2009, 02:52 PM
  3. How Long of Wait for Nikon 70-200mm VRII
    By Wolverinepwnes in forum Photography Equipment & Products
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-11-2009, 11:21 AM
  4. F/s New Nikon D700/Nikon D300/Nikon D3/Apple iphone 3G 16GB
    By mikelucas in forum Commercial/Product photography
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-22-2009, 12:49 PM
  5. FS: Nikon 16-85mm VRII *MINT*
    By 151proof in forum Buy and Sell
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 11-04-2008, 02:48 PM

Search tags for this page

70-200 vs 80-200
,
70-200 vs 80-200 nikkor
,
70-200 vs 80-200 nikon
,
80-200 vs 70-200 nikon
,
nikon 70 200 vr1 vs vr2
,
nikon 70-200 vr ii used
,

nikon 70-200 vs 80-200

,
nikon 70-200 vs nikon 80-200
,
nikon 80 200 vs 70 200
,

nikon 80-200 vs 70-200

Click on a term to search for related topics.