Nikon 70-200 vs 80-200

nxthree

So I've been having some serious lens lust lately. I want a Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR. Badly. It doesn't have to be the new VRII since I shoot a D90.

The problem - convincing my wife. Even used, $1500 sounds like an insanely large amount of money for a lens to someone that doesn't understand.

So... I'm trying to convince myself that the Nikon 80-200 AF-D would be just as good. So I ask of you, fellow dgrinners, aside from VR and AF-S - are there any major differences in picture quality, handling, etc, that would make the 80-200 less desirable?

Thanks for your thoughts.

Brian

Art Scott

You should consider SIGMA 70-200F2.8
iF iT ABSOLUTELY HAS TO BE A NIKON LENS.....then either one will go just fine....I am sure........
However if great sharp as a tack images are that really matter, aside from the money.....why not save a bundle and purchase a SIGMA 70-200f2.8 ......I have shot 1 version of the Siggy 70-210f2.8 for many many many (0ver 25) years....they are fantastic lenses and unless you need this lens to get you into the Nikon PRo Society.....the Sigma will do a fantastic job for you...............I have shot weddings, concerts, portraits, wildlife.......I mean everything has been shot with this lens....
Save yourself some money and keep the wife happy at the same time:Dwink

ojn

nxthree wrote:

So... I'm trying to convince myself that the Nikon 80-200 AF-D would be just as good. So I ask of you, fellow dgrinners, aside from VR and AF-S - are there any major differences in picture quality, handling, etc, that would make the 80-200 less desirable?

What would you be using it for? Sports or other action? If so, the VR could definitely be worth the money. I'm pretty sure the 80-200 is slower at focusing, but it's not something that has bothered me yet.

If you're thinking of upgrading to FX down the road, one thing to keep in mind is that the 70-200 VR(I) has been said to be a bit soft in the corners on FX.

I bought a high-serial 70-210 f/4 to get a cheap zoom that (I was hoping) would keep my lust for a 80-200 or 70-200 at bay for a while. It did, and I like it, but I also come across a CL ad for a two-ring 80-200 that I couldn't pass up.

For me the choices at each step were reasonable simple: <$200 for the 70-210 was within the toy budget, $600 for an 80-200D was acceptable for an upgrade but I couldn't motivate the $1200+ for a used 70-200VR.

If I was shooting a lot of moving objects and/or in low-light conditions I might have a different opinion, but at this time I have no desire to upgrade to VR or VRII.

nxthree

Art Scott wrote:

iF iT ABSOLUTELY HAS TO BE A NIKON LENS.....

Yeah. I'm picky.

ojn wrote:

What would you be using it for? Sports or other action?

I shoot a little bit of everything. Family, landscape, etc. Not much sports or action photography.

I'd love to upgrade to FX but already have a fair amount invested in DX lenses, so I'd imagine I'll be DX for quite a few more years. And to be honest, with what I'm shooting, I don't see the corners mattering all that much (I'm not much of a pixel peeper).

ARKreations

I made the (compromised) choice of an 80-200 over the 70-200 for cost reasons. Overall, it's a fantastic lens for low-light work. While it does focus noticeably slower than the AF-S lenses (my 24-70 for comparison), it's not exactly a slouch on a body with a strong focus motor (D300) either. At half the cost of the 70-200, it's a great compromise in the price .vs. performance space. I looked at the Tamron 70-200 2.8 (I'll let Art wave the Sigma flag as I couldn't find one to compare) before buying and there was no comparison - Nikon wins hands down in sharpness and focus accuracy.

No doubt, the 70-200 is the Cadillac, but the 80-200 is a worthy alternative.

angevin1

nxthree wrote:

Yeah. I'm picky.




I shoot a little bit of everything. Family, landscape, etc. Not much sports or action photography.
.

Family and Landscape?

I find the older 35-70mm Nikon (here) to be about perfect in that category. My 80-200 sits more often than not when in THAT mode.

Zerodog

You mentioned the 80-200d But what about the older 80-200AFS? Not quite as cheap as a D but not as expensive as the VR. This is the lens I ended up with. Mine has has some use but I ended up getting it for $600. Although I have never seen another so cheap I would pay a lot more for it and still be happy. The AF on it screams and it is very sharp at 2.8. I have used it on a D90 and a 300s with great results. It is probably my favorite lens for people.

nxthree

angevin1 wrote:

Family and Landscape?

I know. Strange combination. But I reviewed a handful of shots I've taken recently, and found the 70-200 range to be the range that produces my best photos.

Zerodog wrote:

But what about the older 80-200AFS?

Excellent suggestion. Not sure why I didn't include that as an option.

bloomphotog

My experience:

First pro DSLR was a D700(still have it). Bought the 70-300, sold it a week later for an old push/pull style 80-200mm 2.8. Shot the heck out of that glass and could not have been happier. November 2009 I traded up to a 70-200mm 2.8 VR. The VR was great, but I felt like I had lost some IQ. The corners were very soft wide-open, center sharpness was decent wide-open and the vignetting was pretty bad. January 2010, I just picked up the new 70-200mm 2.8 VR2. I feel like I've regained all the sharpness of the 20 yr. old 80-200 combined with the new VR and increased contrast of the new glass. And of course lighting fast AF. That was the only downside to the 80-200. It was pretty slow when racking stop to stop. Once locked on it would do pretty well, unless you had something fast coming straight at the camera.

The 80-200 represents a great value and offers fantastic IQ, and a solid build. The new 70-200 VR2 is a dream come true, but at 3-4X the cost.

Gary Mayo

Ebay, you can save some money if you shop wisely.

nxthree wrote:

So I've been having some serious lens lust lately. I want a Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR. Badly. It doesn't have to be the new VRII since I shoot a D90.

The problem - convincing my wife. Even used, $1500 sounds like an insanely large amount of money for a lens to someone that doesn't understand.

So... I'm trying to convince myself that the Nikon 80-200 AF-D would be just as good. So I ask of you, fellow dgrinners, aside from VR and AF-S - are there any major differences in picture quality, handling, etc, that would make the 80-200 less desirable?

Thanks for your thoughts.

Brian

cbbr

It neither you nor your target are moving fast, the 80-200 is a great lens. And if you get one for a good price, you can always get your money back out of it in a sale.

excell007

I have both of this lenses and one observation I have is that the picture of the 80-200 at 200mm looks a lot closer than the 70-200 vrII. I just got the VRII today So I have not compared the pictures, The closeness of the image is the first thing I noticed. I also compared it to my 70-300 and the size is much closer to the 70-300 when set at approx. 150mm

ziggy53

excell007 wrote:

I have both of this lenses and one observation I have is that the picture of the 80-200 at 200mm looks a lot closer than the 70-200 vrII. I just got the VRII today So I have not compared the pictures, The closeness of the image is the first thing I noticed. I also compared it to my 70-300 and the size is much closer to the 70-300 when set at approx. 150mm

I have not heard that before so I am looking forward to your observations and image samples once you've had a little more time to test the lenses.

Qarik

excell007 wrote:

I have both of this lenses and one observation I have is that the picture of the 80-200 at 200mm looks a lot closer than the 70-200 vrII. I just got the VRII today So I have not compared the pictures, The closeness of the image is the first thing I noticed. I also compared it to my 70-300 and the size is much closer to the 70-300 when set at approx. 150mm

This is because the lens was totally redesigned. At closer distances the zoom does not go to 200mm but 156mm or so. If you focus on something farther then the zoom continues to reach to 200mm and I think 10 meters or so it will have reached 200mm. It is not a design flaw. Other lesn have this issue as well but this one is more pronounced due to the design. I suppose to achieve the improvement on this lens vs the vr1 including better sharpness, less vignetting and closer focusing distance you have to settle for less zoom on the short end.

Art Scott

Gary Mayo wrote:

Ebay, you can save some money if you shop wisely.

Nikon 80-200f2.8 on ebay still going for 1K -1.6K and the 70-200 vrll is well over 2k with the vrl hitting just under 2k if you can find them from any one except Hong Kong sellers.......

I have been watching theses lenses for several months since I bought back into Nikon..............

Over at Nikon Cafe there is a 70-200VR for $1.5K .....but to buy there one must be a member for 6mo and have a min of 300 post....without these you cannot even look :-}} Don't we have it great here???? :-}}

jonh68

Art Scott wrote:

Nikon 80-200f2.8 on ebay still going for 1K -1.6K and the 70-200 vrll is well over 2k with the vrl hitting just under 2k if you can find them from any one except Hong Kong sellers.......

I have been watching theses lenses for several months since I bought back into Nikon..............

Over at Nikon Cafe there is a 70-200VR for $1.5K .....but to buy there one must be a member for 6mo and have a min of 300 post....without these you cannot even look :-}} Don't we have it great here???? :-}}

Quick look over at KEH shows the 70-200 VRI in the 1500-1950 range.

The 80-200 AFS is in the 1000-1400 range.

The 80-200 AFD is in the 700-900 range.

excell007

Qarik wrote:

This is because the lens was totally redesigned. At closer distances the zoom does not go to 200mm but 156mm or so. If you focus on something farther then the zoom continues to reach to 200mm and I think 10 meters or so it will have reached 200mm. It is not a design flaw. Other lesn have this issue as well but this one is more pronounced due to the design. I suppose to achieve the improvement on this lens vs the vr1 including better sharpness, less vignetting and closer focusing distance you have to settle for less zoom on the short end.

Your right it is less pronounce at longer focusing distance but it's still there at around 50 ft., although very slightly. Now I have to ebay my 80-200 2.8D

zarniwoop

nxthree wrote:

So I've been having some serious lens lust lately. I want a Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR. Badly. It doesn't have to be the new VRII since I shoot a D90.
......etc, stuff deleted
Brian

Brian,
I have the 80-200 2.8D with turn-zoom (Nikon made different versions).
Optically it is one of the best lenses in this length. So I suggest you list the differences between the two and take a hard look at which diffs are really important to you. If VR is, then you'll need VR. If it isn't, then there might be no quality-difference for you and you would be off exactly as good with the 80-200 and still have mony to buy flowers for your wife.

nxthree

zarniwoop wrote:

and still have mony to buy flowers for your wife.

Which will definitely be needed when she hears that I bought another lens.