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

[Sweetsomedays]

My husband thinks we should pay the extra money to get the one with VR cuz I "May decide I want it" in the future. I just don't know...Would it be nice, sure! Do I have to HAVE it....doubt it.

 

[Sideburns]

Get it. VR and IS are very valuable tools for getting more USABLE pictures...

Low light, motion, etc. Helps a lot.

I think most will agree.

 

[ilockert]

vr hands down, Even if your not sure there might be that one day where you say If id only got the VR.

 

[droyz2000]

I have the 70-200 VR, completely worth it.

 

[jstuedle]

I have a couple non-VR 80-200 2.8's and love them. Never shot the VR so can't say, but so far I haven't felt the need to upgrade.

 

[sabbath999]

VR

Absolutely.

 

[Remi M.]

I have the 70-200mm f2.8 VR

I love it, especially the VR. I tend to shoot around sunset and sunrise so the light is always low. With the VR I don't have to use the tripod until the sun is below the horizon.

 

[JIP]

I have the VR and I have to agree it is a great lens. I know the non VR is an excellent lens and if that is all you can afford you will be completely satisfied. When you buy the VR you are just getting the next step up in quality in the lens.

 

[Sweetsomedays]

I will eventualy need to be shooting at night indoors under stadium lighting and last time I tryed that with my 55-200 f/4....well I'm sure you can imagine a newbie like me had a whole load of nice dark pics

I guess that settles that, thank you! Now if I can only find the VR in stock.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

VR doesn't stop action. It just helps a little bit in framing still subjects and photographing still subjects without a tripod.

I think you should go with the 80-200 and a decent wide angle to replace the 18-55 if you're going to spend $1500. I have the 80-200 and it's nothing short of incredible. I've used it for sports before and was very successful in my shooting.

 

[Garbz]

Would I buy the 70-200 for the VR? No, use a monopod. If it's blurry with that then so is your subject.

Now do you shoot sport? The 70-200 has the AF-S motor so it can track objects faster. Especially if you have something other than a D200 / D2X. The cheaper bodies have a weaker AF motor.

Also the 70-200 has better glass coatings, is sharper over the entire range, and better CA. That said I can't justify the cost so there's an 80-200 on the cards for me. I figure photographers of all kinds have survived without VR for the last 100 years I can too

 

[itoncool]

I would go with 70-200 VR, extra money? It's worth it.

 

[castrol]

I love mine. I am having some difficulty with the VR and the AF working on the
camera. Sometimes...it just quits. Then, it will make the camera think the
batteries are dead, on TWO batteries with full charges.

Other than THAT little glitch, the thing is amazing. I use it when ever I can.
With the VR off, it is flawless. If that lens isn't on my camera, its the 50mm.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

Ok, you need to look at this on a personal, objective level. There are people such as castrol that use their telephotos almost exclusively. Then there are the people like me who haven't touched the telephoto in almost two months. People have different photographic needs between eachother. It's up to you to be able to decide on whether or not it's worth spending $1500 on a lens you might not really use all that much, depending on what kind of shooting you do.

 

[Sweetsomedays]

I shoot mostly equestrian events. I need the range, and I need to be able to shoot in low light which my 55-200 vr f/4 doesn't really allow and I know it's not near the quality of the *edited to correct* 70-200 VR.
My VR is what I use most unless I am taking pictures of the kids, then I have the 50mm on.

I think it's worth it...especially since I do 90% of it hand held.