Nikkor 70-200VR vs 80-200 2.8

A

adam*

Suspended / Banned
Messages
916
Name
Adam
Edit My Images
No
I'd like to hear opinions from anyone who has owned both.

Is the 70 worth alot more second hand - about £250 more?

What's the difference in focus speed (AF-s versions)

Any other opinion.

Adam
 
To confirm... you are talking 70-200VR vs 80-200 AF-S?

If so, yes I've used both, and own the 80-200 AF-S. I would say that the AF speed is no different in use. I don't know the figures, but both snap to focus in an instant. I can see no difference in sharpness although it is said that the 80-200 is sharper over the entire frame (possibly noticable with a full frame body, which I don't have). There is a difference in light fall off to the corners on the 80-200 wide open but not as noticable as reviews made out. For the portrait work I use my 80-200 for it's a stunning lens, sharp as anything at f/3.2 and still very sharp at f/2.8. So, if you need VR then that's a good reason to get the 70-200. Also, remember that the 80-200 AF-S only ran 1999-2003 so if it has not had a new AF motor fitted then you should budget for it soon (Mine has, and it ain't cheap).

Is the 70-200 worth the extra £250... possibly :shrug:

Hope that helps
 
Have got the 80-200 2.8 AF-D (two ring version), and the AF keeps up well for rallying/motorsport in good light, obviously get the odd OOF shot in low light but it doesn't happen often.

Obiiously the AF-S version is going to be quicker, but I wasn't sure it was worth the extra money, the AF-D version seems to be quick enough for what I do. :shrug:
 
I am yes burble. Doesn't sound like there is that much in it really. Guess it's just up to me whether I decide I need the VR!
 
I've got the 80-200 2 ring version, pre VR. It's slighly noiser in use I think than the new models but the biggest issue for me is the minimum focussing distance which is 1.8m, I think the new ones are still about 1.4m but it's noticeable from a usability perspective. Given my 18-200 will focus to within 0.5m that's normally the lens I take when going walkabout
 
What's the difference in physical size between the lenses?
 
Thanks martyn.

Virtually nothing in it really which is nice to know.

Anyone know if the 80-200 is weather sealed?
 
adam* said:
Thanks martyn.

Virtually nothing in it really which is nice to know.

Anyone know if the 80-200 is weather sealed?
Click to expand...

Not sure adam, but have another useful Nikon link LINK site is called Nikon Links, has links to most Nikon stuff on the web, nicely catalogued for you :thumbs:
 
Are any Nikon lenses weather sealed? It's not a leading question... I just don't think so.

By the way neither lens are lightweight, as long as you know that before you buy. For me I find that a good thing as it makes for a steady hold, but others may think otherwise. Such is the trade off for f/2.8.

When I used the VR on the 70-200 I found that it had to 'settle' for at least 1/2 a second. Doesn't sound much, but it is when you are working with young ones LOL. There are times when VR is great but I found I didn't need it most of the time.

Hope that helps
 
V8burble said:
Are any Nikon lenses weather sealed? It's not a leading question... I just don't think so.

By the way neither lens are lightweight, as long as you know that before you buy. For me I find that a good thing as it makes for a steady hold, but others may think otherwise. Such is the trade off for f/2.8.

When I used the VR on the 70-200 I found that it had to 'settle' for at least 1/2 a second. Doesn't sound much, but it is when you are working with young ones LOL. There are times when VR is great but I found I didn't need it most of the time.

Hope that helps
Click to expand...

Yeah I found the VR quite slow, no way near as good as Canon's IS. Weight isn't an issue, i've been using a 24-70L and 70-200L for years now, quite like the weight like you said.

And yes some are sealed with gaskets - 24-70, 70-200VR and quite a few others.
 
There's a list somewhere, usually it's just the top end ones.

I was swaying towards the 80-200 for sure for the big price savings, but spoke to a press photographer I know and he said to definitely get the VR.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top