Nikon 70-300 f4.5 VR vs 80-200 f2.8D (two ring model)

[Ub3rdoRK]

Hey everybody. Ive been torn between these two lenses. I currently have a Nikon D90 with a 18-105 kit lens, 35mm f1.8, 10.5mm fisheye. I pretty much shoot everything. I really am getting into wildlife, candid street shooting for the most part. Im not a professional...obviously. But Im trying to weigh the pro's and cons of each lens, and i know there is no "perfect for anything" lens. Im afraid to buy the 80-200 f2.8 D due to not having VR which the 70-300 has. I have the money for either one.
I feel i would benefit with VR but being able to shoot at 200mm at f2.8 to get the depth of field i want. I know theres other factors but im so full of information its coming out of my ears figuring which one i should get. any specs or recomendations would be HIGHLY appreciated.

 

[SpeedTrap]

Get the 80-200 f2.8!!!!!!!!!

It is a great lens that will out perform the 70-300 in every way

 

[dhilberg]

Most definitely the 80-200 f/2.8. I own one (the two-ring model) and it's excellent.

 

[Derrel]

You know, the "new" 70-300 VR Nikkor is the lens Nikon expert Thom Hogan reccommends for use with the high-rez D3x, and the lens he actually SHOOTS when he needs a lightweight outdoor lens over 200mm, but not a 400mm lens...which is high praise for the new 70-300VR. It really is a cut above the cheap,low-performing $199 to $399 70-300 lenses most camera makers and 3rd party makers have been churning out.

I don't know how much of a tolerance you have for weight and bulk, and California has so,so much better weather than many parts of the USA and Canada that the slower f/stop of a 70-300 is often not that big a hindrance. And an 80-200 two-touch is a substantially larger lens than many people are willing to actually carry and use...

I'd suggest you go to Thom Hogan's Nikon Field Guide and Nikon Flash Guide and read his review of the 70-300VR and see that this isn't the cheap, consumer-ish 70-300's we're all used to...this is a pretty expensive lens for its class, with optics good enough for a 24.5 MP D3x. I own only one 70-300, the old G-series, and it is totally craptastic: I use it as a soft-focus lens with a Cokin 084 diffuser or a black net diffuser for outdoor nudes where I WANT LOADS OF CHROMATIC ABERRATION and a gauzy, diffused image. The new 70-300 VR model is a new, top-shelf design,and according to those who know, is even better than the old $399 ED-glass model, so it's sort of a "pro" 70-300 with VR.

I don't see this as quite the clear-cut decision,especially living in alifornia where the weather is so,so much better (brighter,sunnier) than in may places, like Edmonton, or Seattle...

 

[Ub3rdoRK]

what about the low light conditions? I feel that if i shoot the 70-300 f4.5 to get better low light shots i will have to go higher in ISO where if i use at f2.8 on the 80-200 and still keep quality. at a lower ISO. Im sorry if i am incorrect I understand it in my mind but coming out it seems confusing lol

 

[Derrel]

Yeah, you're right, in low light an f/2.8 maximum aperture is a big advantage. But in your original post you said you were afraid on buying a non-VR lens,and you specifically mentioned, "wildlife and candid street shooting for the most part." Which I took to mean a lens usable for wildlife and candid street shooting--the 80-200 2.8 is very visible on he street,and the reach difference between 200mm and 300mm is pretty substantial.

There are always tradeoffs, and no lens is perfect. If you've owned an 80-200 2.8 you realize how big it is and how much attention it draws, while the 70-300 is a very much smaller,lighter, and more "carryable" lens.

In lower light conditions, obviously a wider aperture lets in more light, but frankly, in really poor light, a fast prime makes more sense and is a *lot* wider aperture wise,and maybe also simply better; lighter, easier to handle, less nose-dive on a light body. On a small,light body like a D90, and 80-200 2.8 is very front-heavy. I dunno...you'll want to handle the two lenses I suppose, and weigh the price versus size, your actual needs, and your commitment to carrying a big,fast stovepipe versus a smaller,lighter lens.

 

[Ub3rdoRK]

What do you mean noticeable on the street how? Like unwanted attention? I just feel as if I almost should save for the 70-200 f2.8 VR but I think it's out of my league. I don't know I'm torn between the two. I think i look at having VR 70-300 would be nice and would go well with my 35mm f1.8. But yet I feel the 80-200 f2.8 would as well. It's not easy to drive to a store because there's no real local ones to ask to try them out besides calumet and I feel spending the money to rent is kind of a waste... Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[KmH]

+1 on recommending the AF 80-200 mm f/2.8D over the 70-300 VR. I have both and each has it's uses. Good camera handleing technique can trump VR.

For wildlife, look hard at Sigma's APO 150-500 mm DG HSM.

 

[Ub3rdoRK]

I think my problem of what im thinking is that i dont trust myself at 200mm without VR. ive been using a friends 70-300 VR and i love the VR. Ive been comparing using the 70-300 at 200mm with and without VR on and it seems im going to be disapointed in lower light. maybe since i dont know how the 80-200 handles yet. Why is this so hard....

 

[tirediron]

I think my problem of what im thinking is that i dont trust myself at 200mm without VR. ive been using a friends 70-300 VR and i love the VR. Ive been comparing using the 70-300 at 200mm with and without VR on and it seems im going to be disapointed in lower light. maybe since i dont know how the 80-200 handles yet. Why is this so hard....

There's no issue. The 80-200 is by far the superior lens and it is equipped with Nikon's BEST VR system!

 

[Antithesis]

The 80-200 is actually a bit shorter than most other equivalent XX-200 2.8 lenses that I've handled. The 70-300's dimension will be bigger at 70mm, and at 300mm, it will be much bigger. But, if weight is a concern at all the 70-300 will be much more comfortable for a long day of toting on the shoulder or around the neck. As far as IQ is concerned, the 80-200 is supposedly exceptionally sharp. But, as with many Nikon consumer zooms, the IQ should be quite good on the 70-300 as well.

And for wildlife use, 200mm will leave you quite short in many cases. I went to costa rica with a 200mm and was severely disappointed many times. On a crop sensor, that extra 100mm goes a very long way. It's going to be a trade-off, as you obviously know. But, for your uses, I'd want both the extra reach and VR. Especially since you can crank the ISO up to 2000 without too much loss in image quality.

 

[JamesMason]

For wildlife, look hard at Sigma's APO 150-500 mm DG HSM.

Is that any good ? like pro glass good ? I find the price of it quite appealing.

There's no issue. The 80-200 is by far the superior lens and it is equipped with Nikon's BEST VR system!

Cant fault that

 

[Ub3rdoRK]

Yes I agree with the 200 wild life will be short. I don't think I will buy a "non nikon" lens. I mhave a weird OCD about that. I am really thinking I should see if I could rent one. I didn't want to but I think it will make me feel better about the purchase. I have emailed flickr users that have the 80-200f2.8 D and the only compaint was obviously the weight and they countered it by using a mono/tripod.

 

[dhilberg]

Yes, the weight is a shocker. It was my first (and still my only) professional-level lens, and it's heavy, nearly 3 lbs.! But you get used to it, and the images are very sharp so it's a sacrifice that's worth it. The only things I find annoying about it is the tripod collar isn't removable and the foot is right in the way on horizontals, and it has a somewhat cumbersome manual focus switch (rotating ring). But I just rotate the tripod foot up and out of the way, and I rarely use manual focus anyway.

For wildlife, 200mm is definitely going to be short, unless you can get very friendly with the wildlife. Quality super-teles don't come cheap, although the Sigma 150-500mm that KmH mentioned has gotten pretty good reviews.

 

[Ub3rdoRK]

well ive decided to go for the 80-200 f2.8 after all. Thanks for the input everyone.