Nikon 70-200mm Vs 80-200mm?

feek

feek

Herbert
Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,582
Name
Rob
Edit My Images
Yes
Hello All I have a question for the Nikonites amongst us- Why is the 80-200mm 2.8 so much cheaper than the 70-200mm 2.8? Is it the build quality? Glass quality? And would I miss that extra 10mm in focal length? Any insight much appreciated. Rob
 
There're lots of different revisions of 80-200 (push-pull, 2 touch, AF-D, AF-S), none have VR. The optics are excellent on all of them.

Will you miss the 10mm? Depends on your application and DX/FX I guess.
 
I have had a 70-200 and I still have an 80-200 AFD. Both have superb optics and are both very well built, only you know if you need the extra 10mm or VR.
 
From what I remember reading, the 70-200 lenses focus much faster much quicker...Someone might be able to prove me wrong however.
 
VR, AF-S (only on 80-200 has AF-S and it is v expensive and not as fast as the latest 70-200), I believe the 70-200 has nano coating to help improve handling of lens flare.

The 80-200 is a bloody great lens (I have one). The 70-200 is just better (I will have one)
 
Thanks Mud and Ade, I guess I wondered if the optics were that different in terms of quality. Rob
 
I recently brought a 80-200 after I was able to compare both the 70-200 and 80-200 with a friend. The optics were identical and the 80-200 has proven to be an excellent lens. I am not an avid sports or wildlife photography but very interested to try it out. I think the 80-200 will fully suit my needs enough to warrant not buying the more expensive 70-200 for the mean time.
 
feek said:
Thanks Mud and Ade, I guess I wondered if the optics were that different in terms of quality. Rob
Click to expand...

Optics, in my experience, very little difference. Yes, the 70-200 is faster to focus, is that worth the extra £600 to you?

That is why I sold mine and stuck with the 80-200, to me, it wasn`t worth the extra money.IMO, the 70-200 is the most overpriced Nikon new/second hand lens, and it has some major competitors there..............:lol:
 
I had the 80-200mm AF-D superb lens - but I upgraded to the 70-200mmVR 11 - and what a difference - it is faster to focus - and possibly the sharpest lens I own - colour and contrast also superb. Then the VR - hand holding at 1/15th sec at 200mm - yep it's amazing - it just works - as long as you have a still subject. Is it worth £1,000 more than the 80-200mm - well that's your choice. i think it was for me. No regrets.
 
awp said:
I had the 80-200mm AF-D superb lens - but I upgraded to the 70-200mmVR 11 - and what a difference - it is faster to focus - and possibly the sharpest lens I own - colour and contrast also superb. Then the VR - hand holding at 1/15th sec at 200mm - yep it's amazing - it just works - as long as you have a still subject. Is it worth £1,000 more than the 80-200mm - well that's your choice. i think it was for me. No regrets.
Click to expand...

Yeah, VR transforms the lens into a capable low-light handheld solution, which I think is worth the extra. I'm rocking a VR1 mind, which for £1k I think is a lot of lens.
 
There are some bargains out there thou if you go looking for them - I was looking at both & got a Nikon 70-200mm VR for an absolute bargain with help from a TP member on here who put me in touch with a photographer who was selling one (& that wasn't on ebay neither...)
 
Mud said:
Yeah, VR transforms the lens into a capable low-light handheld solution, which I think is worth the extra. I'm rocking a VR1 mind, which for £1k I think is a lot of lens.
Click to expand...

Yup , get the lens you want or lust after.....;)

Have you tried the AFD on a D700? Amazing quality at a fraction of the price.However, your money and please buy a 70-200, the more buy, the more the prices of the AFD`s drop.................:thumbs:
 
I went for the excellent Sigma 70-200mm lens , ok it doesn't have OS/VR but is fast enough not to need it Its still an f2.8 lens and as for price comparison

Sigma = £634
Nikon = £1570 mk1
Nikon = £1630 mk2

Say no more and save a huge wedge of cash

Realspeed
 
I use an 80-200 AF-Dn for 90% of my work. Great piece of kit, well built, compact (compared to others). Obvious drawback is that it relies on the slotted drive screw built in to the camera for auto focus operation. Therefore its focusing performance is generally set by the camera it is attached to. I have photographed jets, props, portraits and landscapes with this lens no issues at all.
 
i've got an 80-200 but rarely use it so i've never even really considered an upgrade

bloody heavy things though :(
 
Thanks for the help guys- I might go for the 80-200mm as I've seen a cheap one. Rob
 
The 80-200 is superb,lightning quick AF,and seriously sharp.

Mine is used for m/sport mainly,and have been thrilled with the quality of images,way better than proprietary 3rd part ones used by my mates.

Bargain for the money.
VR is rarely a worry as not used on tripod ,but monopod is handy at times.

Great build quality ,heavier than 70-200.
Pons
 
80-200 is still a superb lens, I sold mine on here and bought the new VR II versions simply because I could not get on with the minimum focus distance, this is the only flaw with the 80-200mm in my opinion. The minimum focussing distance was far more than any other lens I own (and I've a few) and it really restricted me on many an occasion
 
The 80-200 (AF-D, two touch) is my favourite lens, incredibly sharp, well built and very quick AF (on a D300). :cool:

I shoot mostly rally cars and low flying jets with it and have found the AF to keep up no problem. Unless you need VR, the 70-200 doesn't warrant the extra money IMO. In addition some people believe the 80-200 to be sharper than the 70-200 (Mk I) anyway! :thumbs:
 
i have the 70-200 VR 1 and its incredible. the VR really saves the day a lot of the time, at least when not using a tripod. very worth it.
 
I own a 70-200 f/2.8 VR-I and it is great to be sure...

When I broke my issued 70-200 f/2.8 VR in Afghan they issued me with the older 80-200 f/2.8 as a replacement...
You cannot tell any difference in the images at all...the lack of VR was only a problem a couple of times (and using a D3 meant I could cheerfully up the ISO way beyond what was possible when this lens was new).
The nano-crystal coating on the new lens will reduce CA in awkward lighting situations, but again with care, a decent protection filter and a lens-hood, you'd be hard-pushed to tell the difference...

I also think the older lens is better-built - well it's heavier, I know that much... It survived a series of hellish beatings towards the end of my tour, whereas the newer lens was killed in a relatively lightweight tussle with a mud-wall quite early on...
 
Well on Sat, I took the plunge and bought a second-hand 70-200mm 2.8 VR from Stuart at Digital Depot. I can't believe the focus speed and ease of use. It's blown me away for the short time I used it. Will have a greater play during the week. I have to concide to Hashcake on the point he made about "pro" glass being better that amatuer, I was happy with my Tamron 28-85mm 2.8, until I saw the results from the Nikon! Am now hankering after the Nikon 24-70mm 2.8 to complete the line-up. Rob
 
feek said:
Well on Sat, I took the plunge and bought a second-hand 70-200mm 2.8 VR from Stuart at Digital Depot. I can't believe the focus speed and ease of use. It's blown me away for the short time I used it. Will have a greater play during the week. I have to concide to Hashcake on the point he made about "pro" glass being better that amatuer, I was happy with my Tamron 28-85mm 2.8, until I saw the results from the Nikon! Am now hankering after the Nikon 24-70mm 2.8 to complete the line-up. Rob
Click to expand...

The 24-70 f/2.8 is without doubt the best all-round lens I've ever owned...that is an investment and no mistake...
 
feek said:
...Am now hankering after the Nikon 24-70mm 2.8 to complete the line-up. Rob
Click to expand...

Just a thought but have you considered/thought about Nikons "beast" the 28-70mm 2.8 :shrug:
 
Trig's said:
Just a thought but have you considered/thought about Nikons "beast" the 28-70mm 2.8 :shrug:
Click to expand...

I think about ANY Nikon lens:thumbs: but am in the market for either lens. Rob
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top