Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8 VR 1 vs Nikkor 70-200mm f4 for D7100

[Auslese]

I'm trying to make up my mind on these two lenses. The Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8 ED-IF AF-S VR or the Nikkor 70-200mm f4. I am going to be using this on my Nikon D7100, I don't know if I will ever bump up to Full Frame camera, for the foreseeable future I will be using DX format. My primary concern is that I like isolating my subjects, but I am concerned about IQ due to pixel density of my D7100. Thoughts please, I've been trying to find additional information on this specific topic, but haven't had much luck finding anything.

Get the Nikon 80-200 2.8D, VR lenses are garbage, unless you are motionless and have it mounted to a tripod, and the subject is also motionless. The VR is just not fast enough to hand hold, and if you turn it off for that reason as the manual says, then you just have extra parts that complicate things and weigh you down.

 

[Dillard]

I've owned the 80-200 2.8 as well as the 70-200 2.8 VR1. The 70-200 2.8 wins hands down between the two, as it should.

While I have not used the f4 version, I would lean towards the 2.8. There have been many situations where the increased light capabilities of the 2.8 have been incredibly handy. While I can't speak for the build quality of the f4, I know my 2.8 has been through absolute hell and back, and has never let me down. It's been covered in mud, paint, rain, dropped, dinged, etc, and it still takes absolutely beautiful photos with a quiet, consistent auto focus!

 

[Auslese]

I've owned the 80-200 2.8 as well as the 70-200 2.8 VR1. The 70-200 2.8 wins hands down between the two, as it should.

While I have not used the f4 version, I would lean towards the 2.8. There have been many situations where the increased light capabilities of the 2.8 have been incredibly handy. While I can't speak for the build quality of the f4, I know my 2.8 has been through absolute hell and back, and has never let me down. It's been covered in mud, paint, rain, dropped, dinged, etc, and it still takes absolutely beautiful photos with a quiet, consistent auto focus!

Whether the VR lenses are worth a squat depends on the type of shooting you do, and there is no VR lens that beats a quality Prime. I need to run around and chase stuff that is also running around and the VR is just too slow, sure it can be turned off, but then why did one buy it in the first place. I have a first generation VR and a VR11 as well. Neither holds a candle to the 80-200,2.8D. I can computer crop an 80-200, 2.8D to the same field of view as a maxed 80-400Vr and there is no question, the D lens kills the 80-400, but then it is faster, and weighs almost as much as Mount Palomar observatory. The 80-200, 2.8D was out of production and brought back for a reason, as it is perfect, even on new cameras.

 

[Dillard]

I've owned the 80-200 2.8 as well as the 70-200 2.8 VR1. The 70-200 2.8 wins hands down between the two, as it should.

While I have not used the f4 version, I would lean towards the 2.8. There have been many situations where the increased light capabilities of the 2.8 have been incredibly handy. While I can't speak for the build quality of the f4, I know my 2.8 has been through absolute hell and back, and has never let me down. It's been covered in mud, paint, rain, dropped, dinged, etc, and it still takes absolutely beautiful photos with a quiet, consistent auto focus!

Whether the VR lenses are worth a squat depends on the type of shooting you do, and there is no VR lens that beats a quality Prime. I need to run around and chase stuff that is also running around and the VR is just too slow, sure it can be turned off, but then why did one buy it in the first place. I have a first generation VR and a VR11 as well. Neither holds a candle to the 80-200,2.8D. I can computer crop an 80-200, 2.8D to the same field of view as a maxed 80-400Vr and there is no question, the D lens kills the 80-400, but then it is faster, and weighs almost as much as Mount Palomar observatory. The 80-200, 2.8D was out of production and brought back for a reason, as it is perfect, even on new cameras.

Thats interesting. I'm curious as to whether my copy was not up to typical nikon standards then. My VR1 is much quicker to focus, and more consistently in focus than my 80-200 was, and thats shooting some fast moving subjects.

 

[Auslese]

I've owned the 80-200 2.8 as well as the 70-200 2.8 VR1. The 70-200 2.8 wins hands down between the two, as it should.

While I have not used the f4 version, I would lean towards the 2.8. There have been many situations where the increased light capabilities of the 2.8 have been incredibly handy. While I can't speak for the build quality of the f4, I know my 2.8 has been through absolute hell and back, and has never let me down. It's been covered in mud, paint, rain, dropped, dinged, etc, and it still takes absolutely beautiful photos with a quiet, consistent auto focus!

Whether the VR lenses are worth a squat depends on the type of shooting you do, and there is no VR lens that beats a quality Prime. I need to run around and chase stuff that is also running around and the VR is just too slow, sure it can be turned off, but then why did one buy it in the first place. I have a first generation VR and a VR11 as well. Neither holds a candle to the 80-200,2.8D. I can computer crop an 80-200, 2.8D to the same field of view as a maxed 80-400Vr and there is no question, the D lens kills the 80-400, but then it is faster, and weighs almost as much as Mount Palomar observatory. The 80-200, 2.8D was out of production and brought back for a reason, as it is perfect, even on new cameras.

Thats interesting. I'm curious as to whether my copy was not up to typical nikon standards then. My VR1 is much quicker to focus, and more consistently in focus than my 80-200 was, and thats shooting some fast moving subjects.

I am not alone with these lenses sucking, Nikon VR 80-400mm sucks: Nikon Coolpix Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review And here are my test shots from Oct 29 of this year, the situation was dusk, with light still hitting the deer, while the 80-400 let in more light the 80-200 still produced a better image, by far if you zoom into actual pixels view.

the 80 -400 vr nonsense, 80-400 nikon VR at 300 yards (1)

and the 80-200D at the same spot and time

80-200 nikon at 300 yards (2)

The photos were handheld, but I braced the camera on the windshield of my truck to stabilize the camera, as people do on safari in the range rover.

That is reality and VR just totally sucks, I do not want to say this as I spent a lot of money on this junk.

 

[Dillard]

You keep comparing the 80-200 to the 80-400 Vr. What about the 70-200 2.8 Vr? I have never had my VR limit my abilities on fast moving subjects?

 

[Braineack]

but look how many more pixels are on that deer at 400mm.

it's clearly the better image, you have more pixels on the deer. The cant debate that.


seriously, if you're following advice from @Auslese youre doing yourself a huge disservice.

 

[Dillard]

I've owned the 80-200 2.8 as well as the 70-200 2.8 VR1. The 70-200 2.8 wins hands down between the two, as it should.

While I have not used the f4 version, I would lean towards the 2.8. There have been many situations where the increased light capabilities of the 2.8 have been incredibly handy. While I can't speak for the build quality of the f4, I know my 2.8 has been through absolute hell and back, and has never let me down. It's been covered in mud, paint, rain, dropped, dinged, etc, and it still takes absolutely beautiful photos with a quiet, consistent auto focus!

Whether the VR lenses are worth a squat depends on the type of shooting you do, and there is no VR lens that beats a quality Prime. I need to run around and chase stuff that is also running around and the VR is just too slow, sure it can be turned off, but then why did one buy it in the first place. I have a first generation VR and a VR11 as well. Neither holds a candle to the 80-200,2.8D. I can computer crop an 80-200, 2.8D to the same field of view as a maxed 80-400Vr and there is no question, the D lens kills the 80-400, but then it is faster, and weighs almost as much as Mount Palomar observatory. The 80-200, 2.8D was out of production and brought back for a reason, as it is perfect, even on new cameras.

Thats interesting. I'm curious as to whether my copy was not up to typical nikon standards then. My VR1 is much quicker to focus, and more consistently in focus than my 80-200 was, and thats shooting some fast moving subjects.

I am not alone with these lenses sucking, Nikon VR 80-400mm sucks: Nikon Coolpix Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review And here are my test shots from Oct 29 of this year, the situation was dusk, with light still hitting the deer, while the 80-400 let in more light the 80-200 still produced a better image, by far if you zoom into actual pixels view.

the 80 -400 vr nonsense, 80-400 nikon VR at 300 yards (1)

and the 80-200D at the same spot and time

80-200 nikon at 300 yards (2)

The photos were handheld, but I braced the camera on the windshield of my truck to stabilize the camera, as people do on safari in the range rover.

That is reality and VR just totally sucks, I do not want to say this as I spent a lot of money on this junk.

but look how many more pixels are on that deer at 400mm.

it's clearly the better image, you have more pixels on the deer. The cant debate that.


seriously, if you're following advice from @Auslese youre doing yourself a huge disservice.

I agree completely. At this point, I'm purely interested in his rationale. I don't understand how you can argue that any VR lens is inferior to the 80-200.

 

[Braineack]

go read his d7100 vs d810 thread, that will give you a better understanding of his thought process.

 

[sabbath999]

If in doubt, I generally buy the faster lens.

I can't remember ever feeling disappointed that I bought the faster Nikkor over the slower model.

 

[astroNikon]

go read his d7100 vs d810 thread, that will give you a better understanding of his thought process.

Or his other shutdown thread about getting an image in color and black & white ...

 

[astroNikon]

I've owned the 80-200 2.8 as well as the 70-200 2.8 VR1. The 70-200 2.8 wins hands down between the two, as it should.

While I have not used the f4 version, I would lean towards the 2.8. There have been many situations where the increased light capabilities of the 2.8 have been incredibly handy. While I can't speak for the build quality of the f4, I know my 2.8 has been through absolute hell and back, and has never let me down. It's been covered in mud, paint, rain, dropped, dinged, etc, and it still takes absolutely beautiful photos with a quiet, consistent auto focus!

Whether the VR lenses are worth a squat depends on the type of shooting you do, and there is no VR lens that beats a quality Prime. I need to run around and chase stuff that is also running around and the VR is just too slow, sure it can be turned off, but then why did one buy it in the first place. I have a first generation VR and a VR11 as well. Neither holds a candle to the 80-200,2.8D. I can computer crop an 80-200, 2.8D to the same field of view as a maxed 80-400Vr and there is no question, the D lens kills the 80-400, but then it is faster, and weighs almost as much as Mount Palomar observatory. The 80-200, 2.8D was out of production and brought back for a reason, as it is perfect, even on new cameras.

My 80-200/2.8 AF-D is no where near the weight of an observatory .. my telescope is about 165 lbs. the 80-200 feels like a feather by comparison. Also, isn't it lighter than the 70-200 ... 1275 grams for the 80-200 and 1540 grams for the 70-200.

the 80-200.2.8 is a great lens
But IF one knows HOW to use VR then one CANNOT discount the 70-200 VR lens. You gain extra stops even at f/2.8. Great for certain things.

 

[Auslese]

You keep comparing the 80-200 to the 80-400 Vr. What about the 70-200 2.8 Vr? I have never had my VR limit my abilities on fast moving subjects?

You are correct, certainly the 2.8vr is better than the 4vr, that said I will never buy another VR of any type again. all the VR lenses have off switches for the mechanism, why? Because it is of no help in many conditions. The 80-200,2.8D was out of production and was brought back because it is just better than the 70-200,2.8VR, it is just that simple. I posted photos of what VR produces, and it is no advantage, not to me anyway.

 

[480sparky]

go read his d7100 vs d810 thread, that will give you a better understanding of his thought process.

Understanding how trolls think is incredibly easy.

 

[Auslese]

but look how many more pixels are on that deer at 400mm.

it's clearly the better image, you have more pixels on the deer. The cant debate that.


seriously, if you're following advice from @Auslese youre doing yourself a huge disservice.

Both pictures are poor and I would not consider them worthy of being shown. I knew that the light and distance would make the image poor at best, but it was easy to do this test for reference purposes. I did this to prove to myself what lens to use, and now I know that VR does not produce the better image. True the 80-200 is a 2.8 lens, but the 400 should optically be closer and the VR should have compensated for shake creating a clearer image. It failed. Here is an excellent action shot with my 80-200, 2.8 D that I never would have, or would not be as sharp with VR, because VR is not recommended for action, why, because once the VR locks on target, it has to reacquire and relock to take an in focus photo, and if the subject is in fast motion, you get nothing. All In Flight Which is why you can turn off the VR in the first place, which for me means that It is useless, unless the animal poses, which does happen occasionally, but then you still need tripod..... Here is what Rockwell says about VR lenses for sports

"This lens is optimized for handheld photos of still subjects, NOT sports! I do shoot some sports with my D1H camera, but would caution you to check to see that the AF is fast enough to track action for you depending on what you are shooting, especially with anything other than a D1 series or F5.

Nikon salesmen brush this off as "well, its not AF-S," but as you see above plenty of mechanically autofocused lenses are very fast. In this case this lens is just geared very slowly.

The slow AF is OK because the VR lens is not for shooting sports or action anyway. Don't be misled by the illustrations in the sales literature. The point of the VR feature is to be able to shoot still subjects with long exposures without needing a tripod. It is not to be used for shooting things that move quickly requiring fast shutter speeds. For sports you ought to be using a faster lens allowing faster shutter speeds, or if you don't have an f/2.8 super telephoto, faster film." Nikon 80-400mm VR Review