70-200mm f2.8 vs 80-200mm f2.8

Discussion in 'Nikon Lenses' started by Ronaldo, Feb 20, 2012.

  1. Ronaldo
    Offline

    Ronaldo New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2010
    Messages:
    85
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Gallery:
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0
    My Photos Are OK to Edit
    So from what I have been able to read, the 70mm focuses a bit faster.

    Otherwise, can anyone summarize why so much more for the 70mm? From what I can tell the 80mm is still a truly professional lens - - and is so much cheaper than the 70mm.

    What factors should one use to decide between these lenses, assuming budget is not an issue?
  2. zamanakhan
    Offline

    zamanakhan New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2010
    Messages:
    473
    Likes Received:
    29
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Gallery:
    Ratings:
    +29 / 0
    i own the 80-200 afs and its VERY sharp wide open, personally i think its more closer focusing range and VR other than that perhaps a hair sharper.
  3. chuasam
    Offline

    chuasam Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2012
    Messages:
    1,010
    Likes Received:
    213
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Burnaby, BC
    Gallery:
    Ratings:
    +214 / 1
    My Photos Are NOT OK to Edit
    Because the 70-200 is that much more awesome and will save you more money in the long run when you realise that you should have gotten the better lens in the first place :)
  4. BlairWright
    Offline

    BlairWright New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2011
    Messages:
    334
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Maryland USA
    Gallery:
    Ratings:
    +31 / 0
    My Photos Are NOT OK to Edit
    Get what you can afford, they are both great lenses but if you can afford the VR lens you will end up with better shots; VR does make a big enough difference to consider spending the extra money IMO.

    -B
    • Like Like x 1
  5. ann
    Offline

    ann Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2007
    Messages:
    4,262
    Likes Received:
    189
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gallery:
    Ratings:
    +189 / 0
    My Photos Are NOT OK to Edit
    I have owned both, in fact for a long time the 80-200 was my everyday lens. Basically used with film, but with digital it was fine.

    When I updated to a d700 i also update to the 70-200 as the newer coatings fit the digital world better (imho).

    The 80-200 begin an older lens , is one reason for the cost difference.

    I would agree with Blair ,buy what you can afford.
  6. 2WheelPhoto
    Offline

    2WheelPhoto New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2011
    Messages:
    6,850
    Likes Received:
    994
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Tampa
    Gallery:
    Ratings:
    +994 / 0
    My Photos Are OK to Edit

    ^^^^ that...
  7. Nikon_Josh
    Offline

    Nikon_Josh New Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2011
    Messages:
    936
    Likes Received:
    95
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Surrey, UK
    Gallery:
    Ratings:
    +95 / 0
    My Photos Are OK to Edit
    Yep.. it has VR! Big bonus..
  8. chuasam
    Offline

    chuasam Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2012
    Messages:
    1,010
    Likes Received:
    213
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Burnaby, BC
    Gallery:
    Ratings:
    +214 / 1
    My Photos Are NOT OK to Edit
    with the 80-200, you have to stop down to f/4 to get a decent sharpness. You can get the same sharpness with the 70-200 at f/2.8
    in addition, you can hand hold the VR lens up to 5 stops (4 stops if you're conservative) slower than without VR.
    ergo...buying the 70-200 is really the cheaper way to go.
  9. djacobox372
    Offline

    djacobox372 New Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,926
    Likes Received:
    129
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    Gallery:
    Ratings:
    +129 / 0
    My Photos Are NOT OK to Edit
    Im not sure where these comments about the 80-200mm not being as sharp wide open are coming from, have u guys used this lens? I see no difference in contrast or sharpness at f2.8, having owned both. Also the af-s version of the 80-200mm focus just as fast as the newer lenses.

    I havent used the new vr2 and ive heard it's even better wide open, but the vr1 version is not optically better then the 80-200.
  10. Josh220
    Offline

    Josh220 New Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,729
    Likes Received:
    83
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    California
    Gallery:
    Ratings:
    +83 / 0
    My Photos Are NOT OK to Edit
    I have used both, there is definitely enough difference to merit the price variance.
  11. Derrel
    Offline

    Derrel Mr. Rain Cloud

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2009
    Messages:
    28,659
    Likes Received:
    9,899
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    USA
    Gallery:
    Ratings:
    +10,014 / 1
    My Photos Are OK to Edit
    When you day "80-200mm f/2.8" you realize there are a NUMBER of different versions, right??? The somewhat rare 80-200 f/2.8 AF-S, made only for a short period of time, is probably optically the best of the 80-200 models Nikon made, and still commands $995 or so used. It focuses fast, and can follow-focus pretty rapidly-moving targets, because it uses the AF-S focusing protocol, which is frankly, MUCH more-advanced than screw-drive. AF-S and screw drive are not just different mechanical protocols, but ENTIRELY different systems for determining focusing point. AF-S is smart; screw drive has no intelligence whatsoever,and lacks any predictive focusing ability. AF-S has the ability to predict the exact focus point based upon early data analysis...screw drive is like dttz-dtizzz-dtzz-ditzzz-ditzz-dittz...AF-S is like ditz-ditz....focused. (all sounds are simulated!!!)

    The 80-200 AF-D model currently available for $550-$700 used is a solid performer, but from what I have seen, it's NOT as good as either of the two AF-S 70-200 models, nor its successor, the 80-200 AF-S.

    The earlier 80-200 AF models with the "one ring" have a number of optical issues...color fringing at the longer end, loss of contrast wide-open,not-so-great image quality at minimum focusing distance, needing to stop down to f/4 for acceptable "modern" performance levels...kind of a Sigma- or Tamron-like lens...almost professional lens quality, at a low price...I owned two of those....the 70-200 VR, Gen I is VASTLY better, in almost every respect.

    The bokeh, or out of focus image rendering of the 70-200 VR and the newer model is much better than the 80-200 AF-D, in my view.
  12. djacobox372
    Offline

    djacobox372 New Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,926
    Likes Received:
    129
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    Gallery:
    Ratings:
    +129 / 0
    My Photos Are NOT OK to Edit
    I think you're overstating the negatives of the older one-ring AF model, I used one for a while and it performed better then you are describing--very close to the 80-200mm AF-S and 70-200mm VR1 I've also used (sharpness and contrast was the same, but fringing was an issue), and much better wide-open then the sigmas and tamron's I've tried.

Share This Page