Nikon 80-200 v 70-200 VR?

Flash In The Pan

Flash In The Pan

Suspended / Banned
Messages
27,793
Edit My Images
Yes
Has anyone experience of both? I love my 80-200 but I'm just wondering if a 70-200 and a 1.4 or 1.7 Nikon tc would save me from going down the line of buying a Sigma 120-300. I'm not sure I have enough confidence in longevity of the Sigma to plunk down the necessary folding and still sleep at night :lol:
 
Doesn't the Nikon 80-200 accept TCs? If so, why would you want to upgrade to the 70-200VR? I've played with the 80-200 and I have to say it is ultra sharp. I have the 70-200VR, which was given to me as a gift, and got the 1.7 Nikon TC for it; together they are very good, fast, sharp and give me the range I want even though it steps down to f4.5!
 
Wail said:
Doesn't the Nikon 80-200 accept TCs? If so, why would you want to upgrade to the 70-200VR? I've played with the 80-200 and I have to say it is ultra sharp. I have the 70-200VR, which was given to me as a gift, and got the 1.7 Nikon TC for it; together they are very good, fast, sharp and give me the range I want even though it steps down to f4.5!
Click to expand...


Yes it does accept tcs (I'm referring to the AF-D, not AF-S version which obviously does work with a tc), but not Nikon ones. I've tried a Kenko 1.4x pro on it and wasn't impressed.

If I went for something like the 120-300mm then I'd keep the 80-200, because, as you say, it is ultra sharp, but if I went down the 70-200 route then I'd sell it and put the money into something else
 
As much as I like the reach on the Sigma 120-300 at f2.8, I can't think of buying that since the 70-200VR + TC gives better reach, is very fast and sharp. How sharp / crisp is the Sigma vs. the 70-200VR+TC :shrug:? I really can't say ... but I just can't fault the VR+TC to justify selling it for the Sigma ... no way :nono: :nono:

I believe the 70-200VR vs. 80-200 are hard to tell which is the sharpest. At times, I am inclined to believe it is the 80-200, while at other times I believe it is the VR. The same applies for speed.

So, if you really have to choose .... I'd say go with the 70-200VR + TC.

What you can do is rent them out. I believe LensesForHire has them for rent and at a very reasonable price. Sorry, you're a bit too far from where I'm at otherwise I would have offered to let you have a go with the two I have to see how you like them! If you can't hire them, and find yourself down this part of Wales may be you'd like to have a try-out?! Saves you a fortune on selling a good lens and / or buying what you don't really want / know.
 
I was wondering if the AF-S might help with motorsport photography,I always get a nagging feeling the 70-200 would help me nail more shots. Then again the extra reach of the 120-300 with the f/2.8 aperture would allow me to capture some shots that are outwith the range of the 80-200
 
The 70-200VR has far superior autofocus, not that the AF on the 80-200 is bad.

If that's important to you, as it is with motorsports, then it's worth getting.

If you're shooting compressed landscapes and such, you're probably better off saving your pennies and getting the 80-200 AF-D, or even a set of cheaper manual focus primes.

For what it's worth, every review I've seen of the 120-300 f/2.8 says it is an excellent lens, though AF isn't on par with Nikon AF-S.
 
Blapto said:
The 70-200VR has far superior autofocus, not that the AF on the 80-200 is bad.

If that's important to you, as it is with motorsports, then it's worth getting.

If you're shooting compressed landscapes and such, you're probably better off saving your pennies and getting the 80-200 AF-D, or even a set of cheaper manual focus primes.

For what it's worth, every review I've seen of the 120-300 f/2.8 says it is an excellent lens.
Click to expand...


I've got an 80-200, which I'd sell if I got the 70-200. Manual focus isn't really an option for motorsport (for me anyway), otherwise I'd have grabbed one of the cheap(ish) 300mm f/2.8 Nikkors that have been on ebay recently.

I've read a lot of good reviews of the 120-300 too, but also some bad ones, including one from a guy with a lens hire business who has 9 of them and says he is constantly having to send them to Sigma for recalibration.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
....
....., including one from a guy with a lens hire business who has 9 of them and says he is constantly having to send them to Sigma for recalibration.
Click to expand...

Now, this can't be good at all! That's a very bad testimony for this lens, if you ask me :shrug:
 
I have the 70-200VR + 1.7TC and a Sigma 300mm f2.8 Prime and the difference between the 2 is when using the TC on the nikon is massive. The sigma is so much sharper. I find that the TC really DOES affect IQ. I have read reports that the Sigma 120-300 is better optically then the 300mm prime so I would get that if i was you.

Be warned it weighs a ton though!!!
 
The 80-200 f/2.8 is excellent and takes the newest Nikon TCs. Optically its as good as the 70-200 VR, but hard to find now, and often quite pricey too.

Very nice, but consider the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 HSM as well, which is optically on par with both, especially if you can pick up a version before they added the "macro" feature.
 
puddleduck said:
The 80-200 f/2.8 is excellent and takes the newest Nikon TCs. Optically its as good as the 70-200 VR, but hard to find now, and often quite pricey too.
Click to expand...

The 80-200 f/2.8 I refer to above (the AF-D version) does not accept the newest Nikon tcs, nor is it hard to find, Ebay is full of them. The AF-S version, on the other hand is hard to find, having been replaced by the 70-200 VR.

From that man Rockwell, reviewing current Nikon tcs......

"These ONLY work with expensive AF-I and AF-S lenses. One CANNOT mount any other lenses on it unless one grinds down certain lugs on the female mount at a machine shop.

Nikon makes NO AF teleconverters for its general line of AF lenses
 
Sorry, I was referring to the 80-200 f/2.8 AF-S not the AF-D! Should have been clearer. Rest of my post stands - try to find an 80-200 AF-S (if you can)

Really no point picking up the AF-D, the Sigma is cheaper, faster and better.
 
puddleduck said:
Sorry, I was referring to the 80-200 f/2.8 AF-S not the AF-D! Should have been clearer. Rest of my post stands - try to find an 80-200 AF-S (if you can)

Really no point picking up the AF-D, the Sigma is cheaper, faster and better.
Click to expand...


No point in selling the AF-D to buy either the AF-S or the Sigma 70-200, good as both are. What I really need is something like the 120-300, but that won't give me sleepless nights :lol:
 
No point in selling the AF-D to buy either the AF-S or the Sigma 70-200, good as both are.

Well I would agree with that, but wasn't what you were asking in your opening post?!

Alternatively pick up a Kenko 1.4 Pro 300 TC which will AF with your AF-D?

Non of the x0-200 line with a TC will match a Sigma 120-300, but thats a huge beast. Optically fantastic, but its big. VERY big.
 
puddleduck said:
No point in selling the AF-D to buy either the AF-S or the Sigma 70-200, good as both are.

Well I would agree with that, but wasn't what you were asking in your opening post?!

Alternatively pick up a Kenko 1.4 Pro 300 TC which will AF with your AF-D?
Click to expand...

No, I was referring to the Sigma 120-300 and the Nikon 70-200 VR, not the Sigma 70-200, although it was getting a bit confusing :lol:

The Kenko 1.4tc does work with the AF-D, but I found the results too soft and ended up selling mine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top