Nikon Zoom Recommendation - 80-200 2.8 or 70-300 4.5-6.3 VR

[NeilA1975]

Which one?
I've had a couple of 80-200 2.8 previously, they've been OK but i'm now thinking of going a little more modern and purchasing the 70-300 due to range, weight and apparent IQ.
Lens will be used purely for landscape so the large aperture not important.
If anyone has experience with both I'd be happy to hear your opinion.

Cheers
Neil

 

[Nod]

In the real world, the differences between the 2 in terms of sharpness won't be that apparent (they'll [probably show up to pixel peepers though!) so I'd (and did) go for the extra reach of the 70-300. Pretty sure the longer lens is lighter too.

 

[Cagey75]

I loved my old 80-200, had the push-pull version. It was a clunky old thing but the image quality was as good as the 70-200 VRII I traded up to, was a hefty chunk of change for better AF :/ What's your budget? Have you considered maybe a used Sigma 70-200 2.8? I think any of the 2.8 lenses will be sharper, especially stopped down, but reach is nice to have also.

 

[NeilA1975]

I loved my old 80-200, had the push-pull version. It was a clunky old thing but the image quality was as good as the 70-200 VRII I traded up to, was a hefty chunk of change for better AF :/ What's your budget? Have you considered maybe a used Sigma 70-200 2.8? I think any of the 2.8 lenses will be sharper, especially stopped down, but reach is nice to have also.

Thanks Keith...budget no more than 300 quid to be honest.

 

[cambsno]

Had the 80-200, didn't like it. Compared to the previous 70-200 and 70-300 I really missed the VR, images were not great. the 70-300 is much lighter and if not using wide open should be sharp enough.

 

[NeilA1975]

Had the 80-200, didn't like it. Compared to the previous 70-200 and 70-300 I really missed the VR, images were not great. the 70-300 is much lighter and if not using wide open should be sharp enough.

Thanks Simon.

 

[GreenNinja67]

Had both and the IQ of the 80-200 was far superior (if stopped down to f4).

 

[Cagey75]

Had both and the IQ of the 80-200 was far superior (if stopped down to f4).

I found the 80-200 very sharp too. VR is nice but 2.8 is better, always. You're going to be at higher shutter speeds for wildlife, and most likely on a tripod for landscape. But, when restricted by budget it's a tough choice, I know that feeling. I'd personally still go 80-200 though, untill I could save for the 70-200 sigma or tamron offerings

 

[gramps]

80-200 is a great lens still and as said the f2.8 really counts ... it's a solid piece of equipment too.