Nikkor 70-300 VR vs. 80-200 2.8 ED

Well I JUST got my Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 Macro and I can say that it is a very well built lens. The HSM motor is a tad louder than the AF-S but not a big deal. I got it from B&H for $902 including shipping and it came in 3 days:) I now have to go back to B&H and get a bigger case:):) It is a bit on the heavy side at first but I think it is not too tarribly heavy. It has the tripod collor which is very nice and you can use a monopod if you like. It also comes with Sigmas 4 year warrenty:)
 
Speaking about the Nikon lenses - the 70-300 VR is a good enough lens for casual use. I've gotten some great shots with it and the VR is very useful with hand-held compared to the 80-200. But then I'm getting old and frankly, hand holding isn't as easy as it used to be for 'active' shooting (in my case kid's soccer and other sports) It's been more than ok in the past for outdoors shots and more than a few wildlife shots. Perfect and tack sharp? Not always but still pretty decent.

HOWEVER, having moved up to 'better' glass, I can't help but say that neither compares to something like the 70-200 2.8VR

However, as that's 3-4 times your budget......... so acepting the fact that what you REALLY want and should get is expensive......

IMO - and it's an opinion only - the VR is worth it for the type of shooting you're discussing - even if it's 'only' the 70-300 VR.

......the irony of course being that having anything like this 30 or 40 years ago was inconceivable......

Yeah, the 70-300 VR isn't 'as good' as some other lenses but it's one hell of an improvement over what most people could dream of getting with the best optics you could buy a few decades earlier. just my opinion.

Hi, I recently bought a D700 and had to decide what lenses to buy with it. I started from scratch as I moved into the Nikon camp just now. Due to financial constraints I bought the 50/1.4 and the 70-300.
I took quite a few pictures with both lenses and I was generally very happy with the outcome. The 50mm is excellent anyway but the 70-300 did much better than I expected. Even up to 300 regardless of the reservations other people seem to have. However, I was itchy to get 'better' glass and bought the pro lens 70-200VR yesterday. That's when my troubles started. I expected magical improvement over the 70-300. I took hundreds of comparison shots and believe it or not I did not find any improvement in sharpness. And with flash I actually had difficulties to match the sharpness of the 70-300 (at 200mm) with the 70-200VR. I shot many many pictures and got really desperate as the money for the 70-200VR is serious money. Ok, the 70-200VR has a very professional feel to it and though it's heavy the VR compensates with still objects. I spent last night on the internet and got the impression that the 80-200 2.8D AF (but not AF-S) is comparable to the 70-200 but substantially cheaper. This morning I tested again in various light conditions and really I had trouble to see the difference. For me the difference between the 70-300 and the 4times more expensive 70-200 is not really the sharpness or AF speed or VR (both have it). It's obviously the build quality and the 'pro feeling when using it..'. But for my budget it's not sufficient justification for the expense. I went back to the shop and spend more money.. I traded it for the 80-200 2.8D AF and I added the 14-24 which is a truly perfect lens when you want a wide angle zoom.
I spent all day to compare the 70-300 with the 80-200 2.8D AF. My 80-200 2.8D is one of the later versions with a turning ring for the zoom (not the push/pull edition) and it has improved AF. The result is the same. The picture quality is excellent but so is the quality of the 70-300. Maybe I am just not expert enough to see the difference. But the 80-200 makes still sense to me as the build quality is superb and the 2.8 aperture has it's benefits. However I have to say that unless you are a pro and have the cutting edge expertise to use the lens to it's maximum I feel that the 70-300 will do just fine. My simple comparison shots of toys, my family, neighbours running around, kids playing soccer did not show any significant difference between both lenses (magnified on the computer). Funny enough especially the still shots of the toys tend to come out better (sharper, less 'soft') with the 70-300. So now I have two lenses that cover a similar area. The 70-300 will be the 'standard' lens out and about and the 80-200 will be the one for more dedicated tasks but the truth is I have the sneaky feeling it's more to do with 'pro appearance' then real advantage re picture quality, sharpness etc. It's a difficult job to really compare quality and value for money. If budget is not an issue then obviously the build quality of the 70-200VR is very appealing but if you need picture quality for a decent amount of money then the 70-300 really does it for me. It's simple to use, light weight, has the extra reach, has VR and gives you quality pictures. I took about 3000 pictures and the result is consistently excellent.
However, if somebody out there has a real life experience that proves me wrong I would be happy to get feedback.
Thanks and enjoy shooting (pictures..)
Axel
 
Last edited:
Do NOT go with the Sigma. I have heard the sample variation is awful, and you can pick up the AF-D version of the 80-200 for the same price. I am currently saving up for the 80-200 AF-D, which focuses with lightning speed on my D70s and is small enough to fit in my Tamrac Adventure 7. You can't go wrong with this lens. With the crop factor, it will have the same reach as the 70-300, and if you look hard enough you can pick them up for ~$620. I thought about the push pull version, but after reading review that said the AF was terrible, I have my mind set on the 80-200 2.8 AF-D. I really don't know much about the 70-300 VR, I'm sure its a good lens. However, it can be grown out of. It's not as fast as the 80-200, and you have to remember the 80-200 was designed as a professional lens while the 70-300 was designed as a consumer lens.

If you think about it, even if the 80-200 and the 70-300 were comparable in sharpness, I would still go with the 80-200, mostly because it is going to hold its value better, its bokeh is nicer, and its only ~$100 more.
 
I actually prefer slower shutter speed to larger aperture when it comes to low light condition. The prime aperture range of any lens is usually at its mid point, I normally would like to fix the aperture at f/8 unless I want to control the DOF.

When you are forced to using a large aperture in dim conditions, you also lack choice in the control of DOF. The VR function did solve a bit of this problem. I don't have very steady hands but still manage to shoot with a 105mmVR at 1/20s to obtain a sharp crispy photo
 
I use the 80-200 two-ring on my D70 and D700, and on my D700, the image quality is actually better then the 70-200VR. Since the 80-200 was designed for film, the corners don't vignette like the VR's.

As far as AF speed, it's hardly lightning fast. Maybeon a D3, D2h, or D1 or F5, but on a D300/700 and ESPECIALLY on the piddly motor of the D70, it's friggin slow. When I shoot sports I have to rent the 70-200VR just to make sure that the AF is fast enough.
 
I'll have to say the 70-300 is amazingly sharp and super contrasty when I rented it - I'm not a super-zoomer, so I couldn't justify owning it, but for less than $500 right now, a smart jump!
 
I don't want to start a new thread and hope for an answer here. I currently own a 70-300mm AF G lens (yes, the cheap one). It's quite disappointing at 300mm. Is the 70-300mm ED VR any different in terms of image quality? Also, is it any faster?

Thanks,
 
i didn't use it much at 300mm - the equivalent is 450mm on a DX, and without a tripod, I couldn't get amazing shots. I'm sure if I tried, I could, but I think around 250mm is where I stopped, and it was great.

It's legends and leaps beyond the non-VR version - my brother in-law has the non-VR, and it's a disaster at the longer end because of the natural shake most of us have.
 
i didn't use it much at 300mm - the equivalent is 450mm on a DX, and without a tripod, I couldn't get amazing shots. I'm sure if I tried, I could, but I think around 250mm is where I stopped, and it was great.

It's legends and leaps beyond the non-VR version - my brother in-law has the non-VR, and it's a disaster at the longer end because of the natural shake most of us have.
Im sure a cheap monopod will solve that problem of camera shake
 
There are some wild and crazy statements in this thread.

Given the choice, I would keep a lookout on a used 80-200 F/2.8 AF-D if anyone was thinking of making that choice between the 70-300 and Sigma. The thing is a beast, but it is surprisingly versatile. However if money is an option - still save a few pennies more and get that 80-200 used. :D The thing is "old"; but there is a reason Nikon has not changed the lens design and STILL makes the AF-D version new.
 
From the review I've read, the 70-300 VR does not compare in any way to the 80-200 2.8. It is softer, slower, and more poorly built. The 80-200 is a professional lens, while the 70-300 is and amateur lens. Obviously the 80-200 will win the tests.
 
I am really glad to hear your post about the 70-300 Nikon VR lens. I have a D700 and have done some extensive testing versus my 80-200 Pro lens and I have the same result as you. I find the 70-300 VR to be very nice and have sharper pictures than my 80-200 handheld. I keep wanting the 70-200 2.8 VR thinking it will be so much better since it's a pro lens costing around $1600.00 but my $500.00 70-300 VR is doing an excellent job for me an making me money. Nice to see someone else who does their own tests versus just going by what they read and then being disappointed after spending a lot of money. Until the 70-300 lets me down I will be a believer.
 
Two stops faster glass is ALWAYS better than VR IMHO and here's way.

With most telephoto shots the thing which makes the photo work is being able to pop a key person/animal out of a background. Fast glass can do that, VR can't ... or nothing near as much.

LWW
 

Most reactions

Back
Top