Nikon 70-200mm vs Nikon 80-200mm

[simion]

Hey guys!

I need to add a longer zoom to my collection, and at the same time, it being my first professional lens (yay).
I'm quite confused. I was originally looking for the 70-200, but then i came across the 80-200, also 2.8, being at half the price of a used 70-200, and new as well! (please note i'm referring to the newer zoom ring 80-200, not the old push and pull).

So question is, did anyone test the two and could point to me the differences (apart that the 80-200 doesn't have VR)? I am on a tight budget, and if there are no major differences, i'd really rather go for the 80-200.

Thanks!

 

[sapper6fd]

AF-S or the AF-D 80-200?

 

[orb9220]

Had the newer two-ring Nikon 80-200 f2.8 AF-D. And Image IQ-wise is nearly identical to the 70-200vr. Tho many mention the superior coatings of the 70-200 for a tad better contrast and color retention. The AF-S is going to be about twice as fast as the AF-D. The AF-D is more determined by the camera body. So will be slower on a D80-D90 then on a D200,D300 with the beefier torque to drive the lens.

The biggest advantage is of course VR. And a definite needed for wedding and lower light static shooting. Not a big boon to capturing action or motion like sports or wildlife. But can still be a help in lower light situations if the subjects are still or not moving.

The biggest downfall to the older 80-200 f2.8 is weight and no VR. And will uncover bad handheld shooting technique also shutter speed will become more critical when using it. And will require you to practice and tighten up your technique of holding,breathing & stance to get the best out of this lens. If using for sports or wildlife then would recommend a monopod at the ready to help using the slower shutter speeds.

If possible I would bite the bullet and find one 70-200vr used in the $1300-$1600 range to get the VR for much of my Static type shots. Otherwise for many the older 80-200 does just great at a lesser price point. Just requires a bit more work and fine tune the way you use it.

 

[simion]

I'll consider both, although to my understanding, the only difference is that the AF-S has quieter and quicker autofocus, right?
By the way, the lens will be paired up on a Nikon D90

Later edit: cheers for that orb. That definitely helps I think i'll even take my other lens and switch the VR off and see how much more differently it behaves in low lighted situations vs VR on in my hands

 

[bhop]

VR (the feature) is worth the extra dough IMO. It makes a bigger difference on a long lens.

 

[pixmedic]

the VR is indeed pretty nice to have. I cant imagine how photographers ever managed to get decent pictures before VR lenses were invented.
I mean damn...what respectable photographer would show up to a job these days with a lens that doesn't have VR? without VR and SWM and stuff, im guessing their pictures would be garbage. you might as well throw that non VR lens in the garbage..that thing will get you laughed out of the forum...

All sarcasm aside, the 80-200 f/2.8 was a staple lens for pro photographers for many many years...without VR. and SOMEHOW the pros managed. somehow... if the budget allows, get the newer lens. never hurts to have every advantage of modern technology. if you need/want to stick to a tighter budget, do not for a minute think that you cannot take pro grade pictures with the 80-200 lens. learn to use it properly, and it will serve you just as well as many pro photographers before you. Next people are going to tell you that you cant take good pictures with a manual lens.

 

[bhop]

the VR is indeed pretty nice to have. I cant imagine how photographers ever managed to get decent pictures before VR lenses were invented.
I mean damn...what respectable photographer would show up to a job these days with a lens that doesn't have VR? without VR and SWM and stuff, im guessing their pictures would be garbage. you might as well throw that non VR lens in the garbage..that thing will get you laughed out of the forum...

All sarcasm aside, the 80-200 f/2.8 was a staple lens for pro photographers for many many years...without VR. and SOMEHOW the pros managed. somehow... if the budget allows, get the newer lens. never hurts to have every advantage of modern technology. if you need/want to stick to a tighter budget, do not for a minute think that you cannot take pro grade pictures with the 80-200 lens. learn to use it properly, and it will serve you just as well as many pro photographers before you. Next people are going to tell you that you cant take good pictures with a manual lens.

VR is technology that actually works and does help with camera shake if you're hand holding a big lens.

I agree, if it's not in the budget, then don't get it, but if it's within financial reach, it's worth it.

 

[austriker]

I have the 80-200 f/2.8 and its great. When I worked at our school paper I had access to a 70-200 f/2.8 VRII (yes VRII!). The IQ was pretty similar but of course the vrii was able to autofocus/find the focus faster and with the vr shoot with slower shutter speeds for indoor stuff (which has been mentioned). I would recommend the 80-200 especially if you cant splash the cash

 

[Mach0]

If you find a good priced VR then grab it. If not- I would say grab a 80-200 2 ring ( afs or even afd) and the 85 1.8g for even more dimly lit situations.

 

[pixmedic]

the VR is indeed pretty nice to have. I cant imagine how photographers ever managed to get decent pictures before VR lenses were invented.
I mean damn...what respectable photographer would show up to a job these days with a lens that doesn't have VR? without VR and SWM and stuff, im guessing their pictures would be garbage. you might as well throw that non VR lens in the garbage..that thing will get you laughed out of the forum...

All sarcasm aside, the 80-200 f/2.8 was a staple lens for pro photographers for many many years...without VR. and SOMEHOW the pros managed. somehow... if the budget allows, get the newer lens. never hurts to have every advantage of modern technology. if you need/want to stick to a tighter budget, do not for a minute think that you cannot take pro grade pictures with the 80-200 lens. learn to use it properly, and it will serve you just as well as many pro photographers before you. Next people are going to tell you that you cant take good pictures with a manual lens.

VR is technology that actually works and does help with camera shake if you're hand holding a big lens.

I agree, if it's not in the budget, then don't get it, but if it's within financial reach, it's worth it.

^^agreed. that came off more snarky than the humorous post it was intended to be. obviously my single raised eyebrow did not convey well over the internets. but i also wanted it to be a preemptive post for those that would imply that if you aren't shooting with the absolute latest and greatest pro grade gear, you shouldn't be calling yourself a pro. I tend to disagree with that sentiment. strongly.

OP might want to also consider the Sigma 70-200 lens with image stabilization...used, it might be in the same budget, or close to, the Nikkor 80-200 non-VR and might be a suitable alternative AND get you the VR. Ive heard good things about it. Could also look into Tamron as well. IF you don't mind third party lenses.

 

[Mach0]

http://youtu.be/mt_VsEH_T8o

 

[simion]

Very interesting points coming across, and especially that penultimate comment. What about... I normally said i'd stay away from third party lenses, but what about between the 80-200mm or a sigma 70-200? Obviously i'll grab the nikon 70-200 if i see it at a really low price, but at the moment can't exactly afford it

@Mach0, i'll watch that video later, as i'm not home yet.

 

[bhop]

Very interesting points coming across, and especially that penultimate comment. What about... I normally said i'd stay away from third party lenses, but what about between the 80-200mm or a sigma 70-200? Obviously i'll grab the nikon 70-200 if i see it at a really low price, but at the moment can't exactly afford it

@Mach0, i'll watch that video later, as i'm not home yet.

I had the Sigma 70-200 (non-os). I'd choose the Nikons over it every time for the IQ, also less focus hunting. My Nikon 70-200 vr is the sharpest lens I own. Of course, I haven't used the OS version of the Sigma, so maybe it's different.

 

[Mach0]

Very interesting points coming across, and especially that penultimate comment. What about... I normally said i'd stay away from third party lenses, but what about between the 80-200mm or a sigma 70-200? Obviously i'll grab the nikon 70-200 if i see it at a really low price, but at the moment can't exactly afford it

@Mach0, i'll watch that video later, as i'm not home yet.

Believe it or not- the tamron without VR seemed better at slower shutter speeds than the sigma. The nikon was the best. VR isn't necessary unless you are shooting indoors. Even then, what will you be shooting hand held that will be frozen by that low of a shutter speed. Don't get me wrong- I would love a 70-200 VR but I would settle for a 80-200 and a monopod if the budget didn't permit. You'd have money for an 85 1.8g.

 

[sm4him]

I've heard really good things about the Sigma 70-200 and have about decided that's the one that's next on my acquisition list. Too bad my end-of-year contract work isn't gonna happen this year, which means no extra money to play with. Unless I can find another contract job--or sell about $1000 worth of photos. Hey, I'm only about $875 short of that goal! :lmao: