Nikon 80-200 AFS 2.8 Vs. 70-200 AFS VRII
So you would guess no contest right? VRII slam dunks the old AFS? Not quite. In a lot of reviews the old AFS is considered the sharpest of all the 70/80-200 Nikons. In the latest reviews for the VRII they are all saying it is now the top dog. I have the AFS version of this lens, not the more common cheaper AFD. I saw it for sale a few years ago in the paper for $600 and snapped it up. For some reason they still command a heafty price. They seem to sell for around $1000. This test shows why. I had it in for service and ended up needing to rent a 70-200. Yesterday I got a call that my lens was done. I thought it would be cool to test them side by side to see for myself.
In my super secret patio lab I tried a totally uncontrolled real world test. I stood in the same spot, I set custom WB and shot manual. I used the same settings for each lens. I did 1 shot each <b>hand held</b> focused on the exact same spot. These are shot in RAW and all are SOC. No processing at all.
Camera D3s
200mm 1/1600 f2.8 ISO 1000 Custom WB (shot around 6-8 ft away from subject)
This is probably more than a 1:1 crop. These images are their original size. Same crop overlay on both images applied in LR just copied and pasted from one to the other.
80-200 AFS 2.8
New VRII rented from Pictureline in Salt Lake. VR was on.
Original shots
80-200 Maybe a slight hint of vingetting in the corners?
70-200 VRII appears slightly lighter. Maybe the light changed in the minute or 2 to swap lenses?
Here is the link to the gallery to see the original images
http://zerodog.smugmug.com/Photography/70-80-200-Test/15118046_NGuDe#1130245350_RLHyQ
In short I though the new version would blow the old one out of the water. Not really. Maybe the VR would really help for slow shutter speeds, but nothing I shoot uses slow shutter speed. It is all hauling ass. I am always 1/500 or higher. I consider 1/500 my absolute lower limit. So is VR useless for me? Probably. What is interesting is the very obvious difference in focal length between the 2. The new version is quite a bit shorter. Which 200mm is really 200mm?
Not to say the new VRII is bad. I shot a few thousand photos with it over the past few nights. It is a great lens. And it does feel better to me than the VRI while shooting. The zoom ring is very smooth. It focuses fast. Not sure if it is any faster or better at tracking than the old one. But still awesome. But I would not say that it is a revalation for me. But it is not off the menu if I need to buy a new 70/80-200.
Both are sharp as hell, either is a great option.
In my super secret patio lab I tried a totally uncontrolled real world test. I stood in the same spot, I set custom WB and shot manual. I used the same settings for each lens. I did 1 shot each <b>hand held</b> focused on the exact same spot. These are shot in RAW and all are SOC. No processing at all.
Camera D3s
200mm 1/1600 f2.8 ISO 1000 Custom WB (shot around 6-8 ft away from subject)
This is probably more than a 1:1 crop. These images are their original size. Same crop overlay on both images applied in LR just copied and pasted from one to the other.
80-200 AFS 2.8
New VRII rented from Pictureline in Salt Lake. VR was on.
Original shots
80-200 Maybe a slight hint of vingetting in the corners?
70-200 VRII appears slightly lighter. Maybe the light changed in the minute or 2 to swap lenses?
Here is the link to the gallery to see the original images
http://zerodog.smugmug.com/Photography/70-80-200-Test/15118046_NGuDe#1130245350_RLHyQ
In short I though the new version would blow the old one out of the water. Not really. Maybe the VR would really help for slow shutter speeds, but nothing I shoot uses slow shutter speed. It is all hauling ass. I am always 1/500 or higher. I consider 1/500 my absolute lower limit. So is VR useless for me? Probably. What is interesting is the very obvious difference in focal length between the 2. The new version is quite a bit shorter. Which 200mm is really 200mm?
Not to say the new VRII is bad. I shot a few thousand photos with it over the past few nights. It is a great lens. And it does feel better to me than the VRI while shooting. The zoom ring is very smooth. It focuses fast. Not sure if it is any faster or better at tracking than the old one. But still awesome. But I would not say that it is a revalation for me. But it is not off the menu if I need to buy a new 70/80-200.
Both are sharp as hell, either is a great option.
0
Comments
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Do you think the colors look better in my test shot on the 70-200? Not that it is super colorful. I was just thinking a bit brighter all around on it. Not really color.
I do like the weight of the VRII vs the VRI. Not sure why. Maybe I am just used to the heft of the 80-200. Between the 3 it is really splitting hairs anyway.