nikon 80-200 vs 70-200 VR

[Monkey]

Aside from VR, is there a great deal in it?

 

[ruvor]

It depends which version of the 80-200 you are looking at. There is an older AF-S 80-200 which I don't think is manufactured anymore, and the current Af-D version.
Both the 70-200 and AF-S 80-200 will have slightly faster, quieter and slightly smoother focusing. Sharpness wise, there's little to nothing between any of them, all being excellent.

 

[puddleduck]

The 80-200 f/2.8 AF-S is supposed to be better on full frame apparently.

I think the 70-200 VR would be my top choice, actually given the prices of the 80-200 variants I'd be inclined to look at the new Tamron 70-200 and the Sigma 70-200 as both come in and around the AF-D pricing as opposed to the 80-200.

The older cheaper AF-N had some of the slowest focusing I've seen on a lens, its quite dependant on body motor torque.

 

[Tyke Tiler]

I've used the AFS 80-200 f/2.8 and as of the weekend just gone the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR.

My thoughts are that the 80-200 is a very fine lens, very sharp good colours and reasonable AF speed (on a D3 and a D200).
The 70-200 for me is the better lens, the colours are even better and the AF speed is like lightning and it is also much lighter.

Apparently Nikon are planning to update the 70-200 though :shrug:, personally I'm keeping my eyes peeled for a second hand current model.
Price wise I've seen the 80 for less than £600 at one-stop, so that's quite a fair whack cheaper than the 70. If price is an issue your not going to lose out on a huge amount of bang fer yer buck.
T.

 

[puddleduck]

Apparently Nikon are planning to update the 70-200 though

Maybe, but there's not a lot wrong with the current one.

(ignore the nutters on DPR who blow corners up to 300% looking for things to complain about)

I can think of other lens that could use a refresh first.

 

[Tyke Tiler]

Maybe, but there's not a lot wrong with the current one.

Agreed.
I had the pleasure of using an AFS 300mm f/2.8, a 400mm f/2.8 VR and the 70-200mm over the weekend and the 70 was very much up there with the longer range primes in terms of IQ IMO.

(ignore the nutters on DPR who blow corners up to 300% looking for things to complain about)

I can think of other lens that could use a refresh first.

which ones mate?

T.

 

[Monkey]

i was looking at the 80-400 but ive read AF speed is absolutly crap.

So i was thinking 80-200 and the 2 x converter, that way i get faster AF, and ive still got f5.6 at 400mm same as the slower focusing lens.

I wouldnt buy the TC as i wouldnt use it that often, stewart rents them at £12 a week.

 

[Monkey]

I know the 70-200 is nice, but the price of the 80-200 is a big tempter
http://www.onestop-digital.com/cata...d=305&osCsid=d92d47d4b3903c9d10a984f8d3536425

 

[puddleduck]

which ones mate?

T.

If I were Mr Nikon, I'd be looking at adding AF-S to the 80-400 VR, and adding VR to the 300mm f/4, purely to match the Canon offerings.

The 70-200 VR is better than the 70-200 IS already, so I'd address line-up weaknesses before fixing something that isn't broken

 

[Tyke Tiler]

I know the 70-200 is nice, but the price of the 80-200 is a big tempter
http://www.onestop-digital.com/cata...d=305&osCsid=d92d47d4b3903c9d10a984f8d3536425

I agree, It is a good price, I still think I'm going to hold the horses for a second hand 70-200 or maybe even buy a new one in the new year.

If I were Mr Nikon, I'd be looking at adding AF-S to the 80-400 VR, and adding VR to the 300mm f/4, purely to match the Canon offerings.

Sounds very reasonable, there are rumours of the 300mm f/4 being updated but they are just that, rumours.

The 70-200 VR is better than the 70-200 IS already, so I'd address line-up weaknesses before fixing something that isn't broken

I have the EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS and from only using the Nikon equivalent for three days I agree, it's better than Canon's.
T.

 

[Flash In The Pan]

Iq-wise the two lenses are pretty close, for me the lack of an af motor on the 80-200 AF-D was more of a problem than the lack of VR for motorsport use. The 70-200 is, as Tomas says, lightning-quick to af though

I've used 1.4x tcs on both lenses - Kenko on the 80-200 and the Nikon one on the 70-200 and tbh there is no way I would put a 2x tc on the 80-200 as the iq would suffer dramatically.

If you don't need the fast af of the 70-200 then I'd recommend the 80-200 instead, it may be an older model, but it's still a cracking piece of glass

 

[Monkey]

Iq-wise the two lenses are pretty close, for me the lack of an af motor on the 80-200 AF-D was more of a problem than the lack of VR for motorsport use. The 70-200 is, as Tomas says, lightning-quick to af though

I've used 1.4x tcs on both lenses - Kenko on the 80-200 and the Nikon one on the 70-200 and tbh there is no way I would put a 2x tc on the 80-200 as the iq would suffer dramatically.

If you don't need the fast af of the 70-200 then I'd recommend the 80-200 instead, it may be an older model, but it's still a cracking piece of glass

would you put a 1.7x convertor on??

 

[Flash In The Pan]

Not on the 80-200, as you can only get non-oem tc for that. I wasn't impressed with the fit or iq of the Kenko. I was always worried the lens would simply fall off, I doubt it would have, but it didn't inspire confidence. The Nikon one, by contrast, feels just like an extension of the lens, so it should though, given what it cost

 

[Monkey]

hmmmm.

does that mean the 2x converter will be ok on the 70-200 then??

Im looking to get near to 400mm, but i dont want a 300/400mm fixed as it will get little use.

My thinking is if i go to 70/80-200mm i can use it for much more of the time, and rent the TC when i need the extra, still retaining a usable aperture.

 

[Flash In The Pan]

The Nikon TCs will only go on the AF-S lenses, but the Kenko ones will fit both.

I suppose it depends on what you want to spend and what you want to use the lens to shoot....

 

[Monkey]

thats what i meant,can i use the 2x nikon one to make the 70-200 af-s VR a 140-400 f5.6

 

[Flash In The Pan]

Yes you can. I'm sure someone here must own or have owned that combo.

You could always hire the 2.x tc from Stewart and send it to me and I'll test it against the 1.4x

 

[Monkey]

Yes you can. I'm sure someone here must own or have owned that combo.

You could always hire the 2.x tc from Stewart and send it to me and I'll test it against the 1.4x

lol, if you lend me the 70-200 i can hire the 2x and have a play myself

 

[Flash In The Pan]

:nono:

 

[RogDen31]

I use the nikon 1.7 on the vr 70-200 and find it fine.

http://www.rogerdenne.com/Site/Falconry_Display_Albums/Pages/Trevor_Hill_Falconry.html#11

 

[Tyke Tiler]

I use the nikon 1.7 on the vr 70-200 and find it fine.

http://www.rogerdenne.com/Site/Falconry_Display_Albums/Pages/Trevor_Hill_Falconry.html#11

Nice photo's Roger! Any chance you could post a larger pic using the 70-200 with the 1.7TC? I would really appreciate it
T.

 

[PsiFox]

Almost in a position to get me a 70-200 VR, if only a coupleof clients would settle up.

 

[RogDen31]

Nice photo's Roger! Any chance you could post a larger pic using the 70-200 with the 1.7TC? I would really appreciate it
T.

I have some more at 800 x on my flickr linky below, hopefully exif is still intact. In the birds of prey set abbotsbury files were done with the 1.7 and 70-200 combo
try this one and i know the watermark is annoying

 

[Tyke Tiler]

I have some more at 800 x on my flickr linky below, hopefully exif is still intact. In the birds of prey set abbotsbury files were done with the 1.7 and 70-200 combo
try this one and i know the watermark is annoying

Many thanks Roger, I'll definitely invest a 1.7 now!

 

[puddleduck]

I found the 1.7x a good compromise on the 70-200 VR:

#

​

The 2x combo isn't good enough, and I'd be more inclined to get the 80-400 VR if you need 400mm enough to consider the 2x TC.

Optically the 300mm f/4 AF-S blows the 70-200 VR with 1.7x TC away though, so if you are at 340mm enough which the the 70-200 VR with 1.7x I'd look at a longer lens in the first instance.

I believe that if you use TC's a lot, you should have bought a longer lens to begin with

The 1.7x gives much better results on primes that zooms.

The 1.4x works pretty well. I'd avoid the 2x TC unless Elvis re-incarnated and walked down my street and I needed to get the shot.

 

[Richard Peters]

I'd avoid the 2x TC unless Elvis re-incarnated and walked down my street and I needed to get the shot.

Agreed, m ade the mistake of taking a borrowed 2x with my 70-200 to Florida recently instead of the 200-400! I did manage to get 2 shots that were 'just' acceptable with it in terms of sharpness, but just the two mind...lol

This may have been ok but the buggers were blowing around in the wind!

But overall, avoid the 2x like theplague with this lens!

 

[desantnik]

Apparently Nikon are planning to update the 70-200 though

Maybe, but there's not a lot wrong with the current one.

(ignore the nutters on DPR who blow corners up to 300% looking for things to complain about)

I can think of other lens that could use a refresh first.

Yeah but those nutters are who Nikon seems to want to listen to. They already state that their 70-200 is a DX lens...

So that is why they will fix it...

Anyway, coming back to the original point, if you can find the last model 80-200, it might be worth a punt - assuming the price is right and you don't care about VR.

The price of the current 70-200 VR is pretty steep - I should know, I'm just about to buy one! Maybe the current one will drop in second hand value soon when the FX version comes out, but maybe not.

You have to remember the 70-200 is where a lot of the action is at, whether its Nikon or Canon, this is an important lens to them and we all want them!

 

[puddleduck]

Yeah but those nutters are who Nikon seems to want to listen to. They already state that their 70-200 is a DX lens...

Who is "they"? The 70-200 is certainly not a DX lens, and Nikon doesn't describe it as such. Many Nikon film users will dis-agree too

Anyone saying otherwise is in the nutter category previously mentioned

 

[specialman]

Good alternative is the Sigma 70-200mm. Got the MK1 EX DG macro for a smidge over £400 a few months back and can't fault it.

 

[desantnik]

Equally, I tried the Sigma and decided it wasn't a patch on the Nikon... and my friend who owns said lens also agreed and has chopped it for the Nikon...