nikon 80-200 2.8 vs 70-200 2.8

Discussion in 'Photography Beginners' Forum' started by goodoneian, May 4, 2009.

  1. goodoneian

    goodoneian TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2008
    Messages:
    528
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    temecula, ca
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    i'm looking to buy either one of these these lenses hopefully within the next month or so. relatively large price difference aside, what are the major differences between the two lenses? i know the 70-200 has an af motor where the 80-200 doesn't, but that isn't too big of a deal to me since i'll be using just for portaits.

    i've read a fair amount of reviews on this lens but am curious to see what you guys have to say.

    also, if any of you could post comparisons of the lenses shot wide open to compare the "bokeh" that would be appreciated.
     
  2. photogincollege

    photogincollege TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2007
    Messages:
    706
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, Michigan.
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    I am just speaking from what i've read and seen, not actually used. So take this with a grain of salt. But, from what I can tell, the 80-200 and the NON IS version of the 70-200, same sharpness, or close enough to not tell the difference. Both top quality build. But other then that I cant say.
     
  3. Sw1tchFX

    Sw1tchFX TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    May 3, 2006
    Messages:
    7,500
    Likes Received:
    478
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    70-200's better in the center, 80-200's more uniform. If you're shooting film or full frame, the 80-200D is the sharper, and more consistent choice.

    70-200's AF-S, 80-200's AF-D.

    VR, "olde fashoned"

    the 70-200VR can focus closer, with more accuracy, the 80-200 can sometimes have some trouble.


    I chose the 80-200 because of price, and the 2 or 3 times during the year when I need faster AF, I rent the 70-200VR. a heck of alot cheaper to do it that way. Otherwise, i've found on my D700 the 80-200D not only handles better, but consistently gives me better results for static subjects such as portraits or landscapes.
     
  4. goodoneian

    goodoneian TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2008
    Messages:
    528
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    temecula, ca
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    well right now i'm shooting a d300, but i would like to upgrade to a d700 sometime this year or early next year possibly.

    i have read that the 70-200 vignettes quite a bit on full frame and film? that wouldn't be a huge drawback but if it is more controlled on the 80-200 then that's even more reason to go with it and save close to a grand.

    you make an interesting point about renting switch. assuming i got the 80-200, if i really felt the need to use the 70-200 i'm not all that far from quite a few rental shops
     
  5. ANDS!

    ANDS! No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2006
    Messages:
    2,178
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Downtown
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    I have a D300 and the 80-200 AF-D. Previously I would have liked to have the 70-200 VR, but after using the 80-200 for a few months, I dont regret my choice. Considering you will be using this as a primary portrait lens, autofocus issues shouldn't be a problem. I have also found that while the AF is slow and not as reliable up close, it isn't a dealbreaker.
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

nikon 80-200 vs 70-200

,
nikon 80-200 vs nikon 70-200