Nikon 70-200mm vs Nikon 80-200mm

[fjrabon]

It depends on what you're using it for. With sports, the issue is the focus speed. I've never used the 80-200 on a D90, but on my D7000, occasionally it can be a bit slow to focus. Not bad, and not to the point where I think I NEED to upgrade to the 70-200, but its certainly a factor. For sports the VR isn't an issue at all, as the movement of the athletes dictates that you shoot at a shutter speed so high that camera shake isn't an issue in the first place.

For static shots (think slow moving wildlife, portraits, etc) the VR is the biggest issue. The VR will let you shoot at a lower ISO and/or a more stopped down aperture if you're shooting handheld. The lower ISO has its obvious benefits, while sometimes you want a bit of an increase in sharpness and contrast from stopping down, or you want a bit more DOF. Personally, I tend to do most of those types of shots on a tripod or a monopod, so that wasn't as much of an issue for me.

Locked down on a tripod, and focusing on a static subject, I defy anybody to tell the difference between the images these two lenses produce. The 80-200 was a truly fantastic lens for its time, and I think it beat the comparable Canon offerings up until the most recent 70-200 f/2.8 IS MKII L came out (which thoroughly wipes the floor with all these offerings we're talking about here). The issue is whether or not you need the increased focusing speed and the VR. To me, that's 100% of the decision.

The third party offerings are much slower to focus than either of the Nikons. TO the point where I just get really frustrated using them (though to be fair I've only used the Canon mount versions, so perhaps they focus faster in their Nikon mount forms, though I think that's unlikely). Optically they're not awful, but you will notice a step down from the Nikons when shot wide open and at either end of the focal length range. Either of the Nikons are substantially better at 200mm and f/2.8, which is the whole reason you buy one of these lenses in the first place, to shoot wide open at 200mm.

 

[kenwood72]

and I think it beat the comparable Canon offerings up until the most recent 70-200 f/2.8 IS MKII L came out (which thoroughly wipes the floor with all these offerings we're talking about here).

can you quantify this quote? do you own the nikon 70-200 and canon 70-200 you are speaking of? If I was going to go by internet fodder i could argue the Nikon lens is wiping the floor but it would be interesting to know why you say that.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

Think about it, what car do you know whose 2003 model is better than its 2009 model?

Poor example as it depends on your metric. Top Gear UK did an episode where they raced older models against newer models and the results were roughly 50/50. But that doesn't mean you're wrong about the lens.

Did the old have VRII and the mad coating technology such as the new lens =)

 

[manaheim]

12,000 times a year this question comes. Search and ye shall find.

 

[manaheim]

It depends on what you're using it for. With sports, the issue is the focus speed. I've never used the 80-200 on a D90, but on my D7000, occasionally it can be a bit slow to focus. Not bad, and not to the point where I think I NEED to upgrade to the 70-200, but its certainly a factor. For sports the VR isn't an issue at all, as the movement of the athletes dictates that you shoot at a shutter speed so high that camera shake isn't an issue in the first place.

For static shots (think slow moving wildlife, portraits, etc) the VR is the biggest issue. The VR will let you shoot at a lower ISO and/or a more stopped down aperture if you're shooting handheld. The lower ISO has its obvious benefits, while sometimes you want a bit of an increase in sharpness and contrast from stopping down, or you want a bit more DOF. Personally, I tend to do most of those types of shots on a tripod or a monopod, so that wasn't as much of an issue for me.

Locked down on a tripod, and focusing on a static subject, I defy anybody to tell the difference between the images these two lenses produce. The 80-200 was a truly fantastic lens for its time, and I think it beat the comparable Canon offerings up until the most recent 70-200 f/2.8 IS MKII L came out (which thoroughly wipes the floor with all these offerings we're talking about here). The issue is whether or not you need the increased focusing speed and the VR. To me, that's 100% of the decision.

The third party offerings are much slower to focus than either of the Nikons. TO the point where I just get really frustrated using them (though to be fair I've only used the Canon mount versions, so perhaps they focus faster in their Nikon mount forms, though I think that's unlikely). Optically they're not awful, but you will notice a step down from the Nikons when shot wide open and at either end of the focal length range. Either of the Nikons are substantially better at 200mm and f/2.8, which is the whole reason you buy one of these lenses in the first place, to shoot wide open at 200mm.

I used both lenses extensively. The optical quality and color reproduction on the 70-200 is FAR superior to the 80-200. In fact, I've found it to be superior to my 24-70 2.8 as well.

But then... it's also 2.5x the cost (edit: 2.5x the cost of the 80-200 2.8 that is... "only" 2x the cost of the 24-70.).

 

[2WheelPhoto]

It depends on what you're using it for. With sports, the issue is the focus speed. I've never used the 80-200 on a D90, but on my D7000, occasionally it can be a bit slow to focus. Not bad, and not to the point where I think I NEED to upgrade to the 70-200, but its certainly a factor. For sports the VR isn't an issue at all, as the movement of the athletes dictates that you shoot at a shutter speed so high that camera shake isn't an issue in the first place.

For static shots (think slow moving wildlife, portraits, etc) the VR is the biggest issue. The VR will let you shoot at a lower ISO and/or a more stopped down aperture if you're shooting handheld. The lower ISO has its obvious benefits, while sometimes you want a bit of an increase in sharpness and contrast from stopping down, or you want a bit more DOF. Personally, I tend to do most of those types of shots on a tripod or a monopod, so that wasn't as much of an issue for me.

Locked down on a tripod, and focusing on a static subject, I defy anybody to tell the difference between the images these two lenses produce. The 80-200 was a truly fantastic lens for its time, and I think it beat the comparable Canon offerings up until the most recent 70-200 f/2.8 IS MKII L came out (which thoroughly wipes the floor with all these offerings we're talking about here). The issue is whether or not you need the increased focusing speed and the VR. To me, that's 100% of the decision.

The third party offerings are much slower to focus than either of the Nikons. TO the point where I just get really frustrated using them (though to be fair I've only used the Canon mount versions, so perhaps they focus faster in their Nikon mount forms, though I think that's unlikely). Optically they're not awful, but you will notice a step down from the Nikons when shot wide open and at either end of the focal length range. Either of the Nikons are substantially better at 200mm and f/2.8, which is the whole reason you buy one of these lenses in the first place, to shoot wide open at 200mm.

I used both lenses extensively. The optical quality and color reproduction on the 70-200 is FAR superior to the 80-200. In fact, I've found it to be superior to my 24-70 2.8 as well.

But then... it's also 2.5x the cost.

+1, I've found the same thing

 

[fjrabon]

and I think it beat the comparable Canon offerings up until the most recent 70-200 f/2.8 IS MKII L came out (which thoroughly wipes the floor with all these offerings we're talking about here).

can you quantify this quote? do you own the nikon 70-200 and canon 70-200 you are speaking of? If I was going to go by internet fodder i could argue the Nikon lens is wiping the floor but it would be interesting to know why you say that.

Yes, I own the 80-200, and the studio I work in has both the MKI and MKII Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L

I'd rank them like this:

MKI L < 80-200 Nikkor << 70-200 Nikkor <<<<<<<<< 70-200 MKII L

I've never seen anybody say that the current 70-200 f/2.8 Nikkor beats the 70-200 MKII L. Everybody I talk to, even the Nikon shooters, are willing to crown the MKII L as the king of the mid range tele zooms.

 

[fjrabon]

It depends on what you're using it for. With sports, the issue is the focus speed. I've never used the 80-200 on a D90, but on my D7000, occasionally it can be a bit slow to focus. Not bad, and not to the point where I think I NEED to upgrade to the 70-200, but its certainly a factor. For sports the VR isn't an issue at all, as the movement of the athletes dictates that you shoot at a shutter speed so high that camera shake isn't an issue in the first place.

For static shots (think slow moving wildlife, portraits, etc) the VR is the biggest issue. The VR will let you shoot at a lower ISO and/or a more stopped down aperture if you're shooting handheld. The lower ISO has its obvious benefits, while sometimes you want a bit of an increase in sharpness and contrast from stopping down, or you want a bit more DOF. Personally, I tend to do most of those types of shots on a tripod or a monopod, so that wasn't as much of an issue for me.

Locked down on a tripod, and focusing on a static subject, I defy anybody to tell the difference between the images these two lenses produce. The 80-200 was a truly fantastic lens for its time, and I think it beat the comparable Canon offerings up until the most recent 70-200 f/2.8 IS MKII L came out (which thoroughly wipes the floor with all these offerings we're talking about here). The issue is whether or not you need the increased focusing speed and the VR. To me, that's 100% of the decision.

The third party offerings are much slower to focus than either of the Nikons. TO the point where I just get really frustrated using them (though to be fair I've only used the Canon mount versions, so perhaps they focus faster in their Nikon mount forms, though I think that's unlikely). Optically they're not awful, but you will notice a step down from the Nikons when shot wide open and at either end of the focal length range. Either of the Nikons are substantially better at 200mm and f/2.8, which is the whole reason you buy one of these lenses in the first place, to shoot wide open at 200mm.

I used both lenses extensively. The optical quality and color reproduction on the 70-200 is FAR superior to the 80-200. In fact, I've found it to be superior to my 24-70 2.8 as well.

But then... it's also 2.5x the cost (edit: 2.5x the cost of the 80-200 2.8 that is... "only" 2x the cost of the 24-70.).

I've had both, and there is a difference, but I don't think it's a big difference, when locked down on a tripod with a static subject. Color wise, they're different, I think but I never really considered one better or worse, just slightly different. If anything, I think that the 80-200 actually works a bit better with Nikon's default JPEG color settings. The 70-200 with the Nikon default saturation boost gets kind of out of hand in certain shooting situations. If you're shooting RAW, I just don't think it matters, because you'd adjust them anyway to the color levels you want.

Again, that's just my opinion. I've not met anybody who can blind tell the difference between shots taken with the two lenses when they're both locked down on the tripod. Yes, sometimes the 70-200 is a bit sharper, but I think that's mostly because it focuses better and the VR. I don't think the actual sharpness is really noticeable with the human eye, without extreme pixel peeping.

 

[fjrabon]

I used both lenses extensively. The optical quality and color reproduction on the 70-200 is FAR superior to the 80-200. In fact, I've found it to be superior to my 24-70 2.8 as well.

But then... it's also 2.5x the cost (edit: 2.5x the cost of the 80-200 2.8 that is... "only" 2x the cost of the 24-70.).

What body are you using it on? I have heard that the difference between the two optically is much more apparent on full frames, as a lot of the 80-200's issues are corner sharpness, which isn't as relevant on a crop frame sensor.

 

[manaheim]

I used both lenses extensively. The optical quality and color reproduction on the 70-200 is FAR superior to the 80-200. In fact, I've found it to be superior to my 24-70 2.8 as well.

But then... it's also 2.5x the cost (edit: 2.5x the cost of the 80-200 2.8 that is... "only" 2x the cost of the 24-70.).

What body are you using it on? I have heard that the difference between the two optically is much more apparent on full frames, as a lot of the 80-200's issues are corner sharpness, which isn't as relevant on a crop frame sensor.

It depends on what you're using it for. With sports, the issue is the focus speed. I've never used the 80-200 on a D90, but on my D7000, occasionally it can be a bit slow to focus. Not bad, and not to the point where I think I NEED to upgrade to the 70-200, but its certainly a factor. For sports the VR isn't an issue at all, as the movement of the athletes dictates that you shoot at a shutter speed so high that camera shake isn't an issue in the first place.

For static shots (think slow moving wildlife, portraits, etc) the VR is the biggest issue. The VR will let you shoot at a lower ISO and/or a more stopped down aperture if you're shooting handheld. The lower ISO has its obvious benefits, while sometimes you want a bit of an increase in sharpness and contrast from stopping down, or you want a bit more DOF. Personally, I tend to do most of those types of shots on a tripod or a monopod, so that wasn't as much of an issue for me.

Locked down on a tripod, and focusing on a static subject, I defy anybody to tell the difference between the images these two lenses produce. The 80-200 was a truly fantastic lens for its time, and I think it beat the comparable Canon offerings up until the most recent 70-200 f/2.8 IS MKII L came out (which thoroughly wipes the floor with all these offerings we're talking about here). The issue is whether or not you need the increased focusing speed and the VR. To me, that's 100% of the decision.

The third party offerings are much slower to focus than either of the Nikons. TO the point where I just get really frustrated using them (though to be fair I've only used the Canon mount versions, so perhaps they focus faster in their Nikon mount forms, though I think that's unlikely). Optically they're not awful, but you will notice a step down from the Nikons when shot wide open and at either end of the focal length range. Either of the Nikons are substantially better at 200mm and f/2.8, which is the whole reason you buy one of these lenses in the first place, to shoot wide open at 200mm.

I used both lenses extensively. The optical quality and color reproduction on the 70-200 is FAR superior to the 80-200. In fact, I've found it to be superior to my 24-70 2.8 as well.

But then... it's also 2.5x the cost (edit: 2.5x the cost of the 80-200 2.8 that is... "only" 2x the cost of the 24-70.).

I've had both, and there is a difference, but I don't think it's a big difference, when locked down on a tripod with a static subject. Color wise, they're different, I think but I never really considered one better or worse, just slightly different. If anything, I think that the 80-200 actually works a bit better with Nikon's default JPEG color settings. The 70-200 with the Nikon default saturation boost gets kind of out of hand in certain shooting situations. If you're shooting RAW, I just don't think it matters, because you'd adjust them anyway to the color levels you want.

Again, that's just my opinion. I've not met anybody who can blind tell the difference between shots taken with the two lenses when they're both locked down on the tripod. Yes, sometimes the 70-200 is a bit sharper, but I think that's mostly because it focuses better and the VR. I don't think the actual sharpness is really noticeable with the human eye, without extreme pixel peeping.

I've used them both on the D300 and D200. I've also used a D800, but only with the 70-200 VR2. By the way, we are talking the VR2 here right? I've never used the VR1.

I only shoot RAW, and what I'm saying is that there is simply deeper richer color coming out of the 70-200... I'm not talking white balance here, I'm talking color reproduction.

This is entirely in subjective tests consisting of shooting "the things I shoot" day in and day out. Not a lab situation. However, I shot with the 80-200 for a couple years and didn't expect the 70-200 to be THAT much better, but literally my jaw dropped when I started looking at the pictures that came ouf of that thing.

I'm not in any real position to argue with you since my statements are all subjective and anecdotal, but experience tells me that you get what you pay for in photography equipment, and I don't see how you can say that a $1,000 lens is going to be anywhere near "just as good" as a $2,500 one. If that were so, why would anyone bother? Except those people who have nothing but money to blow I suppose. There's no question that the 80-200 2.8 is a GREAT lens and anyone who would be dissapointed with the results would need to remind themselves that they got it for $1,000 instead of $2,500, but experience and what articles I've seen on it would seem to indicate that the 70-200 2.8 VR2 is notably superior in almost every way.

 

[thereyougo!]

To throw the cat among the pigeons, Nikon are about to announce a 70 - 200 f/4 with VR 3.

 

[fjrabon]

I'm not in any real position to argue with you since my statements are all subjective and anecdotal, but experience tells me that you get what you pay for in photography equipment, and I don't see how you can say that a $1,000 lens is going to be anywhere near "just as good" as a $2,500 one. If that were so, why would anyone bother? Except those people who have nothing but money to blow I suppose. There's no question that the 80-200 2.8 is a GREAT lens and anyone who would be dissapointed with the results would need to remind themselves that they got it for $1,000 instead of $2,500, but experience and what articles I've seen on it would seem to indicate that the 70-200 2.8 VR2 is notably superior in almost every way.

Well, I considered the $1000 or so difference to be mostly for the increased focus speed, AF-S compatibility and VR. Sure, the color is better, but I've never felt it was that much better. I also wasn't talking about white balance either, I was talking about saturation levels. Which can easily enough be massaged in post these days anyway.

I agree, the color is better in RAW with the newer VRII, but I don't think it's leaps and bounds better, IMHO. And to the extent it is better, it can mostly be 'corrected' in the older 80-200 in post, if you shoot RAW. If you shot JPEG, I actually tend to prefer the 80-200's color a tiny, tiny bit. And since I mostly use this lens to shoot sports, and thus shoot it mostly in JPEG, I tend to maybe personally not care as much about the color rendering.

 

[fjrabon]

To throw the cat among the pigeons, Nikon are about to announce a 70 - 200 f/4 with VR 3.

I've never really felt that the f/4 lenses were direct competitors with the f/2.8s anyway. If you want/need f/2.8, the new f/4 doesn't do anything for you, regardless of the VRIII. Though it perhaps does signal a forthcoming f/2.8 VRIII

 

[thereyougo!]

Well if your budget can't stretch to a 2.8 then a high quality 4 will run it close. I get bored with people saying as if they are some kind of wonder photographer "I shot this wide open at 2.8". Whoopie do. Shoot at the right aperture for the shot, rather than willie waving! I rarely shoot wide open, and I have no shame is saying so.

 

[cannpope]

I can't fell you anything about the 80-200 because I've never used one, but the 70-200 is awesome. It produces some beautiful images.