Nikon 70-200 f2.8 v 80-200 f2.8

Rockshifter

Rockshifter

Suspended / Banned
Messages
6,229
Name
Charles
Edit My Images
No
I'm thinking of one of these fast zooms for indoor sports.
The 80-200 is about half the price of the 70-200.
I'm using the D300.
Any advice welcome.
 
80-200 is :thumbs: on the D300, although for indoor/lowish light the 70-200 might be better. If Calumet ever get round to sending me my 70-200 I'll post some side by side shots :shake:
 
Cheers Flash.
Do you take most of your shots on this lens with a pod ?
The 70-200 does have VR. Is it worth paying double ?
 
Rockshifter said:
Cheers Flash.
Do you take most of your shots on this lens with a pod ?
The 70-200 does have VR. Is it worth paying double ?
Click to expand...

I haven't found the need for a monopod, the glass is fast enough to get sharp shots handheld. The advantages I can forsee of the 70-200 are the AF-S and to a lesser extent, for me anyway, the vr. Is it worth £5-600 more? I hope it is, but until I get ahold of one and use it in anger I can't really say.
 
I tried both, for me the 70-200 VR is absolutely amazing and shines over the 80. Super fast, super sharp, super everything.
 
Rockshifter said:
I'm thinking of one of these fast zooms for indoor sports.
The 80-200 is about half the price of the 70-200.
I'm using the D300.
Any advice welcome.
Click to expand...

For sports you won't be using VR. I have the VR version and I love it. Never used the 80-200 so can't compare.
 
db247 said:
I tried both, for me the 70-200 VR is absolutely amazing and shines over the 80. Super fast, super sharp, super everything.
Click to expand...

The optics are supposed to be near identical, but if you're right then I'll (eventually :bang:) be a very happy camper, because the images from the 80 already seem pretty impressive to me :D
 
Advantages of the 70-200: silent focussing; VR.
Advantages of the 80-200: build quality, size/weight.

At the risk of sounding like a pimp, I know a place where you can hire them both to see which one you get on with best...
 
I have the Nikkor 80-200mm F/2.8D and i'm really pleased with it, I wouldn't pay double to get the 70-200 as I don't think it's possible to improve on the sharpness, you can pick a good one up on ebay for £400ish you could get the 80-200 and another quality lens for the price of the 70-200.
 
Looks as though most feel the 80-200 will do an excellent job and a he'' of a lot cheaper.
Looking to go for it.

Flash - I'd like to use this lens hand-held at ice hockey (very poor lighting) games.
Will I get sharp images ?
 
A little tip - try to get the 80-200 AF-S not the 80-200 AF-D.

The AF-S works better on a D3 / D700 than the 70-200 VR, and optically they are identical on DX.

You don't need VR for indoor sport, you need fast shutter speed to freeze subject motion. At say 1/250+ even at 200mm thats plenty of speed to handhold. VR will actually introduce a bit of lag.
 
Puddleduck
I've got d300. If they're identical why should I go for the 80-200 AF-S ?
Is there a price difference ?
 
They're not identical, the af/s is silent wave focussing, the af/d is cam focussing.
It's not a straight swap, the af/s is no longer manufactured, and that doesn't even make them cheap, even if you could find one.
I would think you'd be looking at the thick end of 6-£700 for a secondhand 80-200 af/s, the af/d could be bought new for that.
The bang for buck lies with the af/d, the af isn't as fast as either the 80-200 af/s or the 70-200 af/s vr, but it isn't pedestrian.
Both the 80-200's are legendary, I'm sure the 70-200 will also become so.
Make sure you know which af/d you are looking at, some of the older models do have slow af.

80-200 af/d ed
80-200 af/s
70-200 af/s vr

easiest way to tell the difference between an af/d and the af/s at a glance is the af lock buttons on the side of the af/s between the grip rings.
 
well i played with a 70-200 VR and i will be buying on of these.

so i cant comment on th 80-200. but i would have thought i was a good but i am going for the legend
 
joxby said:
They're not identical, the af/s is silent wave focussing, the af/d is cam focussing.
It's not a straight swap, the af/s is no longer manufactured, and that doesn't even make them cheap, even if you could find one.
I would think you'd be looking at the thick end of 6-£700 for a secondhand 80-200 af/s, the af/d could be bought new for that.
The bang for buck lies with the af/d, the af isn't as fast as either the 80-200 af/s or the 70-200 af/s vr, but it isn't pedestrian.
Both the 80-200's are legendary, I'm sure the 70-200 will also become so.
Make sure you know which af/d you are looking at, some of the older models do have slow af.

80-200 af/d ed
80-200 af/s
70-200 af/s vr

easiest way to tell the difference between an af/d and the af/s at a glance is the af lock buttons on the side of the af/s between the grip rings.
Click to expand...

:agree:

Another quick way to diferentiate an af-d from an af-s is the lens hood as the af-s has one which is similar to the 70-200 in shape. Assuming of course that the hood is fitted :bonk:

I know a pj who prefer the older push-pull 80-200 af-d over the newer 2 ring version, as he says it is easier/quicker to zoom, but I guess that is down to personal taste, also any push-pull 80-200 is going to be an old,old lens.
 
I have a push puller, it is quicker to zoom but the af is slow compared with todays tele's, banging glass mind, sharp as a b****r and great for anything not moving too fast.
Un-fortunately, this push pull design doesn't lend itself to dust free optics, mine has loads of dust in it, but its built for f/2.8 so it doesn't matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top