I'd like to see a really good, thorough, rigorous testing of some of the 70-200 and 80-200 f/2.8 lens options, by somebody who has the equipment and the skills and experience to actually do a worthwhile test that focuses on sharpness of image, vignetting, chromatic aberration, and center/edge performance, as well as focal length and image magnification at say 2 meters, 3 meters, 5 meters, and then just a straight focal length measurement at Infinity focus distance. Done on both APS-C and also FX. A few years back, dPreview tested the Nikon VR-1 and Canon 70-200/2.8 L IS USM lenses and found that the Nikkor was the better lens on APS-C, but the Canon was a better lens on FX. But times change, lens models change, and we are shooting on newer, different cameras now. I'm starting to wonder just how good the Tamron 70-200/2.8 VC lens actually is at portrait ranges. I stopped shooting my 70-200 VR-1 on FX because...at landscape ranges, the corners even at f/7.1 are just NOT SHARP when shot on 24MP FX Nikon...I mean, they are simply NOT sharp...on APS-C, the bad areas are not even imaged, and the strong sharpness in the middle of the field is actually what is captured by the sensor; which, with a 12MP Nikon APS-C camera, is a perfectly great lens performance from f/4 to f/8. But the DxO Mark sharpness test graph Tony shows for the VR-1 on the 36MP D800 is the big limitation of the now decade-old 70-200 VR-1 lens.
One lens that gets recommended a LOT is the 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-D, aka the "two ring", but if one reads Thom Hogan's review of it, it's pretty clear, the lens which USED TO BE "good enough" back in the 12MP APS-C days is now no longer good enough to cut the mustard at f/2.8...it's optically not good enough for this era's cameras. It's in reality, limited in optics until stopped down to f/4...which makes me think it'd be a better bet to buy the newer 70-200 f/4 AF-S VR-G and get newer optics and VR and a smaller, lighter lens.
