80-200 2.8 or 70-200 2.8 vr???

[illbowhunter]

I have to decide which Nikon lens will be best for me. I mainly shoot sporting events, kids, and some weddings. I am using a Nikon D90 camera. What I am trying to decide is if the 70-200 with vr is worth the extra $1000.

 

[manny212]

Well let me know what you decide , i have finally decided to sell my 80-200 , two ring , not push pull . In great shape . Just cleaning a little house i am starting to acquire wayyyy to many lenses . lol

 

[Trever1t]

While the optics reportedly of the 2-ring 80-200 are pretty good, the AF is considerably faster and the VR really comes in handy. VRI is nice, VRII is amazing. I can handhold 200mm at less than 1/60 in a crunch and have remarkably good images.

 

[tirediron]

It depends; it's focus is lightning quick which is great for sports, but if you don't need that, it's IQ isn't so much better than the 80-200 that I would spend the extra money unless I didn't need anything else.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

70-200 VRII all the way. Superior coated glass, faster, etc etc etc

Don't look back

 

[Dillard]

I have the 80-200 and love it. Now I have zero experience with the 70-200, it was a money issue with me. The 80-200 is a great lens, and won't let you down. But if you can swing the 70, I would

 

[IByte]

1/3 of the holy photo trinity if I had the capital I would. I heard very little(if any complaints) invest in the extra 1k, gaurantee you will feel more guilty returning it than you would buying it.

 

[KmH]

I didn't think the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR Zoom Nikkor Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras let alone the even more expensive Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II AF-S Nikkor Zoom Lens For Nikon Digital SLR Cameras
was worth the extra $$$'s, and was very happy using the Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8D ED AF Zoom Nikkor Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras for action spots and othre things.

The 80-200 focused plenty fast enough and the optics were the previous generations professional grade. I say use the money you save for some other purpose, even if it's just siting in the bank earning some intertest.

Of course, if money is no object, get the latest and greatest.

 

[bhop]

IMO, the VR is worth it... at least if it's not breaking your budget. If your cash is tight, then you can still get good shots without VR, you just have to be more steady.

 

[CheezyCheeto]

I can tell you that even with the 80-200 you'll be extremely happy with the image quality. I can't tell you anything about how it compares to the 70-200 though because I don't have any experience with using one.

My suggesting it to get a used 80-200 and see how well that fits with you. If too many of your shots are coming out blurry or out of focus, then sell it and get one of the VR versions. You can get pretty much what you spend on a 80-200. They're going for about the same/a little more right now then what I got it for about a year ago.

 

[orb9220]

Well the 80-200 f2.8 AF-D can be problematic for static and indoor shooting. The VR is a great and needed feature for indoor and things like weddings. And AF speed was a noticable difference to the faster 70-200 f2.8. As my 80-200 f2.8 AF-D newer two ring version required 1/125th handheld to start getting the keeper rate up. And faster so as not to worry about getting the shot or not. There are many static or near static shots that would benifit from VR.

So if monies are that big of a deal and can stretch it then the 70-200 no hesitation. But like me and many others couldn't justify the cost so took the next best with the 80-200.
.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

IMO, the VR is worth it... at least if it's not breaking your budget. If your cash is tight, then you can still get good shots without VR, you just have to be more steady.

+1, and VRII works at much slower shutter speeds

 

[illbowhunter]

Thanks. I think I will go with the VRI.