80-200 2.8 vs 70-200 2.8 VR

[manaheim]

Has anyone used both of these? I snagged my buddy's 80-200 2.8 and used it yesterday at a soccer game. The thing is really nice. I was originally thinking "oh gee, big long lens, I'm gonna need that VR to keep it steady" but I actually found the weight of the thing helped keep it quite steady (that and the fact that i had to brace my elbow against my chest when shooting to keep my arm from crumbling under the weight of the thing)

Anyway, I was curious if someone had some experience with both and could share their feelings on whether or not it was worth it to go the VR route. (or anything else about the choice between the two, for that matter)

 

[dEARlEADER]

I've used both... there are several variations of the 80-200... I used the latest AFS...

IMO if you plan on eventually going full frame you may want to settle with 80-200 and save yourself a few bucks...

the 70-200 will soon be replaced with the 4 stop VRII and most importantly it will be optimized for full frame.... even though the current 70-200 is an FX lens it apparently vignettes on a full frame sensor.... I haven't personally experienced this because I don't own a FF.

or... if you got the cash to burn get the 70-200 now and dump on the used market if you end up going FF... it's definitely a better lens and the VR will help if you get into the wedding stuff..

 

[Snyder]

I've used both... there are several variations of the 80-200... I used the latest AFS...

IMO if you plan on eventually going full frame you may want to settle with 80-200 and save yourself a few bucks...

the 70-200 will soon be replaced with the 4 stop VRII and most importantly it will be optimized for full frame.... even though the current 70-200 is an FX lens it apparently vignettes on a full frame sensor.... I haven't personally experienced this because I don't own a FF.

or... if you got the cash to burn get the 70-200 now and dump on the used market if you end up going FF... it's definitely a better lens and the VR will help if you get into the wedding stuff..

I never noticed the 70-200 vignette using my D3, hmmm...

 

[JerryPH]

The 70-200 *is* made for full frame cameras. A few people are crying "wolf" about vignette and this lens. It has less vignette than the 80-200 and the 80-200 has VERY little indeed.

I had a chance to briefly test both lenses side by side in a local low light camera store here in Montreal. Both hand-held.

While the 70-200 took excellent pics of the people walking on the sidewalk and inside the store, the 80-200 could only give me clear pictures outside... proving the value of the VR. I find the 70-200 is the better lens and if you do a lot of hand-held shots, it *will* give you better results than the 80-200 ever could.

If most of what you do is tripod (even a monopod will benefit from the VR), save a little cash and get the 80-200.

The 70-200 F/2.8 VR is near legendary for it's quality. Heck, 90% of all Nikon wedding photographers own and love this lens for a very specific reason... the results.

Of note, the 70-200 price has been rising several hundred dollars over the last few months all over and if you do decide on it, will have to keep your eyes open for it, but it is out there and if lucky, you could get it new for under $1650.

The new iteration of this lens will be at least $300-500 or more higher, and though that "4-stop VR" sounds interesting, until I see one in real life or hear an announcement, it's vapourware... and not something that I would suggest that someone wait for if the are in this market. It could be a week as easily as it could be a year or more before it comes out.

 

[manaheim]

Well the 70-200 VR is a nightmare to get your hands on as it is. The thing is always out of stock and when it shows up, it's gone in like seconds.

I'll have to do some interior test shots with the 80-200 and see how it does for me. The outdoor performance was stellar.

Thanks, Jerry.

 

[Garbz]

I've used both, bought the 80-200. The VR didn't sell it for me and as such the 70-200 was not at all worth the extra money. The sports I shoot on occasion are easily handled with a monopod anyway, and if you're going to carry this lens all day you'll want a monopod regardless.

Optically both are near identical, and exceptional at the same time. One thing the 70-200 did have that was better is less torque when focusing. The Nikkor AF 80-200 f/2.8 D IF-ED is dismissed as slow to focus by the newbie camera crowd who often have no idea how autofocus even works, but in reality it is Nikon's fastest non-AFS lens and on a decent body is nearly as fast as the AFS variant or the 70-200 anyway. The only downside is that on such a body like the D200 or the D2x you can feel quite a significant torque on the camera which shakes thing a bit if it's darting backwards and forwards while holding focus.

My opinion on the 80-200:
Excellent lens, great quality, works exceptionally well with a 1.4x teleconverter (but then so does the 70-200, VR wasn't worth it, AF-S wasn't worth it given the fast focusing motor my camera has, and as an afterthought, the 80-200 has an aperture ring. I now use it on my ancient Nikon FE film body too. Highly recomend to anyone.

 

[JerryPH]

A couple of days ago, I found 4 places online that had the 70-200 F/2.8 VR in stock. They come and go fast for a reason.

I am really happy I picked mine up.

 

[SpeedTrap]

the 70-200 will soon be replaced with the 4 stop VRII and most importantly it will be optimized for full frame.... even though the current 70-200 is an FX lens it apparently vignettes on a full frame sensor....

The Rumor of the new lens is just a rumor I have seen nothing to sugest they will be bringing out a new 70-200 anytime soon.

As for vinette, I use it on my D300 and on my full frame D700 and I have never had a problem.

 

[dEARlEADER]

The Rumor of the new lens is just a rumor I have seen nothing to sugest they will be bringing out a new 70-200 anytime soon.

As for vinette, I use it on my D300 and on my full frame D700 and I have never had a problem.

Well... As I mentioned.... I don't shoot FX so I couldn't confirm myself... However if you google "70-200 VR vignette" you will find more than a few people crying wolf... the issue appears well documented when shooting stopped down to f8 or smaller.... but I won't argue with you ... you have D700 and I don't... obviously the vignetting is a non issue with the DX formatted D300....

As far as the new design being a rumor... of course it's a rumor... otherwise it'd be in print... the D700 was a rumor 3 months ago....

Since were playing rumors, the nikon lens price increases mentioned have been attributed to the yen vs. yankee dollar resulting in higher production costs.... I'm not sure what this means, but I've seen it mentioned a few times...

I also saw another rumor the price increase 70-200 is simply due to supply and demand spurred by some pro's switching to Nikon before the olympics..

and of course.. don't forget the last rumor about lack of supply due to redesign...

all of the nikon 80-200 and 70-200 are pro quality lenses... you can't really go wrong with whatever you pick...

on the used market you can find 80-200 around $1000.00 and 70-200 around $1500...

 

[JerryPH]

Hate to say it, but pretty much all 70/80-200s have some small amount of vignetting wide open at the highest zoom setting. You may not easily see it, but it will be there (yes, that includes the Canon lenses too).

But... the vignetting amount is such a minor amount and so easy to correct, that it is not even worth discussing. It takes what, 2-3 seconds to correct on a bad day in post?

It really should *not* be an issue. The 70-200 VR lens is tack sharp, focuses FAST, is relatively light for what it is and placed in the right hands puts out incredibly clean and contrasty pictures.

 

[SpeedTrap]

I agree with JerryPH, anyone who tells you different usually does not own either of these lenses and is trying to justify why they don't.

As for the shortages out there and rising prices, it is most likely due to the fact that Nikon does not make the 70-200 all year, like any manufacture, they produce the lenses in factory runs.

No one predicted the massive number of agencies and shooters that switched to Nikon with the D3 and D700 plus add to that the Olympics and many stores just could not keep them in stock as it is a lens that almost every pro has in their bag.

 

[dEARlEADER]

I agree with JerryPH, anyone who tells you different usually does not own either of these lenses and is trying to justify why they don't.

I am expressing my observations because I am in the market for this focal range and doing the most research I can before I decide where to allocate my money. The 70-200 is relatively old (2003) and rumor or not will definitely be updated very shortly. I would hate to drop the $2000cdn required to buy this lens new only to have an update come out within the next few months that address's the issue of flare (nano coating), faster VR, and better control of vignetting. I imagine people who are in the market for this range are suffering from the choices. The 80-200 is so widely praised, much cheaper, and has a stable resale value. The 70-200 is the best there is, but costs twice as much and the life cycle is ending.

I am willing to spend the money to get the best there is.... but I don't think the time is right to get the 70-200. I still haven't decided but will most likely pick up a used 80-200 and stick it out for a few months. If a revised 70-200 should happen to appear I can dump the 80-200 at minimal loss. If I end up spending the $2000 to get the current 70-200 I will lose at least $600 in resale. The 70-200 is currently averaging $1500 used and will most likely settle down to about $1200 once all the pros start dumping them for the new edition.

just my thoughts....

 

[royalWITHcheese2]

on the used market you can find 80-200 around $1000.00 and 70-200 around $1500...

I'm not sure how different it is in Canada but when I got my 80-200 it was $920 brand new at B&H. Just some info for the OP if they decide to go that route.

 

[SpeedTrap]

DEARIEADER, the above comment was not a shot, I did not intend it to sound that way.

As for the lens, if you opt to buy the 80-200 and a new one comes out you will still be taking a hit, plus there will be 2 VR versions out there and marketing is pushing everyone in that direction. Even if a new lens did come out in 3 months I would not change the fact that the current 70-200 is a great lens.

 

[Phranquey]

I had the 80-200 2.8 AF-D before getting the 70-200 VR, and it was a great lens. I would still have it if I hadn't fell into such a great deal on the VR. It focused plenty fast enough for not being an AF-S, but as Garbz stated earlier, it is a little bit torquey. Optically, it is nearly as good.