nikon 80-200 2.8

[JamieRat]

NIKON Nikon AF Zoom-NIKKOR 80-200mm f/2.8D ED Lens : Camera, Photo & Video | Dell

Why is this lens so much cheaper then the 70-200

 

[Light Artisan]

No VR, no AF-S... optically they are essentially the same however (at least the 70-200 VR I), the VR II is larger step up IQ wise.

Having owned both I appreciate the difference between the two, however for the price difference (new) the 80-200 is a bargain. You can even find less expensive versions if you go to a single ring / push pull style (had one of those as well). I did notice more chromatic aberration with the 80-200, particularly the push pull one.

 

[KmH]

The 70-200 has more lens elements and more of them are ED glass (7 lens elements are ED. The 80-200 has 3 ED lens elements).

ED glass is used to reduce chromatic aberration at longer focal lengths.

The new AF-S 70-200 f/2.8G also has Nano Crystal coatings which reduce ghosting and lens flare.

You can see a graphic of each lens' construction, and details of each lenses features at www.nikonusa.com

 

[Markw]

I own it. I got mine for $550. Absolutely love it. Tack sharp.

Mark

 

[orb9220]

Yep Best Bang for the Dollar Nikon 80-200 f2.8 zoom.
Good technique & monopod will help negate most of the advantage of VR.

Older push-pull one ring goes in the $350-$500 range. And slowest AF of the series.
Newer Two-ring still in production at $1200 new and $550-$900 used.

My Gal "Bertha" by orb9220, on Flickr

And their is the discontinued AF-S version of this lens going for $900-$1100. But at that price would go with the 70-200 f2.8 VR I version for $1300-$1600 used.
.

 

[djacobox372]

It's an awesome lens, just older. Optically the versions of the 80-200mm are just as good as the 70-200mm; nikon has claimed to make improvements to the optics over the years, but I don't see any difference.

I used the single ring 80-200mm f2.8d for years, and loved it. You can buy one of these for around $350-500 depending on condition.

I currently use the AF-S version of the 80-200mm (fairly rare/hard to find), it focuses a lot faster then the af versions, but not quite as fast as the newer 70-200mm. These typically sell for around $1000 used, which would lead me to recommend a 70-200mm vr1 instead. I got mine for a steal; so I can't complain.

I've tried the dual ring version as well, and it focuses slightly faster then the cheaper single ring, but they sell for nearly double which isn't worth it IMO.

 

[Phranquey]

Great lens... had one before upgrading to the 70-200. Bought mine for $650, used it for two years, then sold it for $700.

 

[Light Artisan]

Great lens... had one before upgrading to the 70-200. Bought mine for $650, used it for two years, then sold it for $700.

I bought that from you, thanks for letting me know I got ripped off.

 

[Phranquey]

Great lens... had one before upgrading to the 70-200. Bought mine for $650, used it for two years, then sold it for $700.

I bought that from you, thanks for letting me know I got ripped off.

eacesign: Caveat Emptor

 

[Light Artisan]

Ha! Perfect...

 

[manaheim]

Well...

The 70-200 2.8 VRI was optically roughly as good (and occasionally NOT as good) as the 80-200 2.8. The VRI was fairly soft at times. The 70-200 2.8 VRII is noticably superior to both in my experience. Like, the thing is AMAZING.

One point that no one has mentioned... The 80-200 2.8 also focuses significantly slower than the 70-200 2.8 VRII on most cameras, due to the fact that it is a BIG heavy lens and relies on the focus motor on the camera... whereas the 70-200 2.8 VRI and II have an internal focus motor in the lens. Listening to 80-200 clock into place on even a D300 is pretty painful. whirrrr.... whirrr....

Also worth extending that point... if your camera does not have an internal focus motor, then guess what? No 80-200 2.8 for you. Your less expensive camera suddenly got a lot pricier.

That said, the 80-200 2.8 is a lot cheaper (as many have said) and the optical quality is really great. There are like 80 million of them out there so you can get them used for a pretty reasonable price ($650-800 as some others have pointed out, depending on age and condition). If you are more "budget conscious" (funny statement when spending this much on a lens) and looking for a lens like this, it's a real no-brainer.

 

[Light Artisan]

Eh, anyone with a body that doesn't have an internal focus motor can pick up a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX HSM for $799 brand new and be well served for many years.

 

[manaheim]

Eh, anyone with a body that doesn't have an internal focus motor can pick up a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX HSM for $799 brand new and be well served for many years.

errrrrrr... ok, but the Sigma really doesn't hold up to the Nikon. It's a good lens, but it's not the same.

Standard rule of camera gear... and particularly with lenses... you get what you pay for.

 

[Light Artisan]

No? It's a dang good lens and if you miss a shot because you have to manually focus I'd say it's a sweet alternative. I've owned one, along with 2 80-200's and the 70-200, it served me very well and if it had VR (OS) I'd still be using it today.


Mallard by Light Artisan Photography, on Flickr

Sorry, I know this is a Nikon thread - shame on me.

 

[manaheim]

We're talking about a qualitative comparison here, so that's always challenging, but it is well accepted that Sigma makes good lenses that are a decent and less expensive alternative if you can't (or don't want to) pay for the Nikon.

On a very rare occasion Sigma makes a lens that is either slightly better than the Nikon equivelent or fills a gap that Nikon has not filled... the Sigma 10-20mm 4/5.6 was an excellent example of this, and one of the very few Sigma lenses I own...

However... generally... Sigma is second best.

This is not to say they are bad. They are merely not as good.

It's also worth pointing out that the difference between an $800 and $2300 lens (even within the same family) is generally not NEARLY as huge as the difference in price... there is a VERY steep curve as you get closer to "amazing".