fjrabon
Been spending a lot of time on here!
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2011
- Messages
- 3,644
- Reaction score
- 757
- Location
- Atlanta, GA, USA
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos OK to edit
I traded out mid range tele zooms with a friend last week just for fun, he getting my 80-200 f/2.8 AF 2 ring and me getting to try out his 70-200 f/2.8 VRII.
Optically I flat out can't tell the difference between the two. I think the newer version has a bit better contrast at the far end, but who knows? It was so close I couldn't really tell, my friend told me that was a difference, and at times I thought I maybe saw it, but I don't think I ever would have noticed, if that hadn't been pointed out, and I'm still not sure if I actually noticed it, or if it was me just looking for it and convincing myself it was there. It certainly wasn't obvious. I can't discern any difference between the two sharpness wise. Perhaps on a D800, with a 100% crop you can tell, but on a D7000, there just isn't ANY discernible difference. And for a point of reference, I can easily spot the difference in sharpness between the Canon 70-200 MkI and MkII offerings. So, I don't think it's an issue of me just not being able to see it. Perhaps the corners of the 70-200 are sharper, and I'm not seeing that on my DX, but this thread is about the difference to me, on my camera, so...
However, a big difference, and one I wasn't aware of, is how if you're focusing on anything close at 200mm, the focal length DIES on the newer lens. I didn't exactly measure it, but it looks like it zoomed out all the way to something like 150mm. I don't have a ton of tele zoom experience with a lot of different lenses, as my primary experience has been with Canon's 70-200 f/2.8 IS L and my Nikon. This was annoying to me. Perhaps with use I wouldn't mind it, but yeah, I found it really annoying to lose reach when close focusing. I guess this is why Nikon puts the 'macro' designation on the 80-200, which I always found sorta laughable?
Build quality feel, it's no contest. The 80-200 feels like a full on pro build that could withstand Armageddon and look new. The focus ring can sometimes break on these, from what I've heard, but it's a simple fix. The 70-200 feels like a mix between the 80-200 and Nikon's less professional grade lenses. to give a point of reference, the 80-200 feels like a D300S, the 70-200 feels like a D7000.
The newer AI-S focuses quicker, but it's almost hard to notice the difference. For a point of comparison, any of the third party lenses in this range are much slower to focus than the 80-200.
And of course there is VR. Let me start this by saying I'm a sports shooter with teles, primarily. I use them sometimes for portraits as well, but I tend to use some form of lights with my portraits anyway. If you're shooting sports or flash, VR just doesn't matter very much. I don't really shoot natural light weddings at this point, and if/when I do, I may change my tune on this, but for what I shoot, I personally don't really care about VR with this lens. The only lens I want/need VR on is a generalized walk around for vacation type photos. Anything else I'd personally use a 80-200 range tele, I will either: 1) be shooting fast shutter speeds 2) be using lights 3) be on a tripod/monopod or 4) some combination of the above.
So for me, the better feel of the lens, and the better close focusing won out. The 70-200 is a fantastic lens, and I suspect for many, if not most, it's better for them than the 80-200, but I was expecting to be jones-ing for the 70-200 VRII once our 10 day trade period was over. Mostly I just wanted my 80-200 back. So, if you shoot mostly action, or otherwise don't really need VR, in my opinion, this lens is absolutely just as good optically, and better build quality wise than the twice the price 70-200 VRII.
Optically I flat out can't tell the difference between the two. I think the newer version has a bit better contrast at the far end, but who knows? It was so close I couldn't really tell, my friend told me that was a difference, and at times I thought I maybe saw it, but I don't think I ever would have noticed, if that hadn't been pointed out, and I'm still not sure if I actually noticed it, or if it was me just looking for it and convincing myself it was there. It certainly wasn't obvious. I can't discern any difference between the two sharpness wise. Perhaps on a D800, with a 100% crop you can tell, but on a D7000, there just isn't ANY discernible difference. And for a point of reference, I can easily spot the difference in sharpness between the Canon 70-200 MkI and MkII offerings. So, I don't think it's an issue of me just not being able to see it. Perhaps the corners of the 70-200 are sharper, and I'm not seeing that on my DX, but this thread is about the difference to me, on my camera, so...
However, a big difference, and one I wasn't aware of, is how if you're focusing on anything close at 200mm, the focal length DIES on the newer lens. I didn't exactly measure it, but it looks like it zoomed out all the way to something like 150mm. I don't have a ton of tele zoom experience with a lot of different lenses, as my primary experience has been with Canon's 70-200 f/2.8 IS L and my Nikon. This was annoying to me. Perhaps with use I wouldn't mind it, but yeah, I found it really annoying to lose reach when close focusing. I guess this is why Nikon puts the 'macro' designation on the 80-200, which I always found sorta laughable?
Build quality feel, it's no contest. The 80-200 feels like a full on pro build that could withstand Armageddon and look new. The focus ring can sometimes break on these, from what I've heard, but it's a simple fix. The 70-200 feels like a mix between the 80-200 and Nikon's less professional grade lenses. to give a point of reference, the 80-200 feels like a D300S, the 70-200 feels like a D7000.
The newer AI-S focuses quicker, but it's almost hard to notice the difference. For a point of comparison, any of the third party lenses in this range are much slower to focus than the 80-200.
And of course there is VR. Let me start this by saying I'm a sports shooter with teles, primarily. I use them sometimes for portraits as well, but I tend to use some form of lights with my portraits anyway. If you're shooting sports or flash, VR just doesn't matter very much. I don't really shoot natural light weddings at this point, and if/when I do, I may change my tune on this, but for what I shoot, I personally don't really care about VR with this lens. The only lens I want/need VR on is a generalized walk around for vacation type photos. Anything else I'd personally use a 80-200 range tele, I will either: 1) be shooting fast shutter speeds 2) be using lights 3) be on a tripod/monopod or 4) some combination of the above.
So for me, the better feel of the lens, and the better close focusing won out. The 70-200 is a fantastic lens, and I suspect for many, if not most, it's better for them than the 80-200, but I was expecting to be jones-ing for the 70-200 VRII once our 10 day trade period was over. Mostly I just wanted my 80-200 back. So, if you shoot mostly action, or otherwise don't really need VR, in my opinion, this lens is absolutely just as good optically, and better build quality wise than the twice the price 70-200 VRII.
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/34/34134-d2249816e46b705693bfc543c9b1f481.jpg?1734164670)
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/39/39476-6e232ea205145ad1a1da0690d7617642.jpg?1734173571)
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/34/34138-0ecadfd41de9ae178e53528e0eb1a32c.jpg?1734164691)