Nikon 70-300mm VR II or Tokina 80-200mm 2.8?

djacobox372 · Dec 8, 2011

Im a big fan of the nikon 80-200mm, afd versions can be had for $500 in fantastic condition. If u need faster focus the afs version runs about $850.

benhasajeep · Dec 9, 2011

I agree with others on a Used Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 over any of the others. Make sure its the 2 ring version. The older version which is a single push pull version is good. But the newer design 2 ring is a bit better. I have had the 2 ring version since new for over 13 years now (AF-D version, not AF-S). And it still works great. Tokina lenses are built very strong, more traditional type of construction. Sigma and Tamron use lots of plastic. Tokina are known for being soft, and most have some level of CA. I do have and like my Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 though. I just don't shoot it wide open. Many lenses even from the big manufacturers do get soft wide open, especially when zoomed out all the way.

Now having said that. Assuming price is a major consideration. Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 (2-ring) would be my first choice. I have no experience with the AF-S version. Although the AF-S version may focus faster. I have yet to have a problem with my AF-D version focusing slow. I have had very bad luck with Sigma products. So I no longer look at them. I do own 1 Sigma lens right now. But not really happy with it. I had to send it in for service after less than 2 hours of use. It came back and works, but focuses slower now. And Sigma swears its in spec.

cgipson1 · Dec 9, 2011

As MLeek mentioned.. look for a NIKON 80-200 2.8 AFS used..... stay away from the third party stuff in that range.. most of it is junk!

Personally... I would also look at a Nikon 28-300... The aperture isn't 2.8, but the lens is sharp... no CA that I have seen.. and focuses fast, much faster than the 70-300 VR and MUCH MUCH faster than the 3rd party lenses in this range. I have example photos if you want to see them. I use this lens as my walkaround... usually when outdoors, I either have this lens, or my 70-200 2.8 VR II on. The 28-300 can be had used for around $800.. which is obviously in your range... since you are looking at a$700 5mm 1.4 Zeiss, yes?

nickzou · Dec 11, 2011

Alright, so I guess I should have asked this question earlier but how do these third party 70-200's compare in terms of IQ (sharpness/contrast/whatever) to the 70-300 VR II. If it is on par with this lens I would be pretty happy. From 70-200 on the VR II, I think the images look great, it's just the aperture that I kinda have a problem with.

cgipson1 · Dec 11, 2011

Nick... spend a grand.... and get a Nikon 80-200 2.8 ED used! You won't regret it.. if you really feel you have to have that 2.8 aperture, that is going to be your absolute best bet.

nickzou · Dec 11, 2011

I actually have the oldest model of that lens. Finally got it repaired (de-centered element). Even after getting it repaired it doesn't feel all that sharp and I do miss VR.

nickzou · May 30, 2013

So yeah... took me about a year and a half but I found the 80-200mm AF-S on Kijiji selling for 675. I bought it, it's great. And I didn't even have to blow a grand on it.

Gavjenks · May 30, 2013

A 2.8 lens is 1-2 ish stops faster than a 4.5-5.6 lens.
Image stabilization generally gives 1-2 ish stops back to you, but only for camera motion (or subject motion when panning in some models).

Thus, all other things equal, a 2.8 lens is pretty much objectively better than a 4.5-5.6 lens with image stabilization, because both of them wide open will shoot at the same speed for still subjects, and the 2.8 will do much better for a wider variety (or all) moving subjects. Also... more DOF control in your hands.

Edit: oh okay, this thread is over a year old, other than the update from the OP just now. But still. Above thoughts are relevant to many situations.