Nikon 70-200 vs 80-200 VR /No VR

lifeinfocus

i am considering investing in one of these two lenses:
AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II,
or AF Zoom-Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D ED

Price difference is about $1,200 more for the VR lens. I have the Nikon 70-300mm VR so I have experienced vibration reduction.

For the above two lenses when does it become valuable to have VR capability? I am considering using it for indoor events, sports and portrait work. In other words, lots of possible uses.

Is there a certain shutter speed when it becomes valuable? Any and all comments are welcome.

Phil

divamum

Recent discussion here, I believe

Art Scott

Anytime the lens is handheld...low light...sports that is not tripoded or monopoded...
and the difference in return on income later will be much greater on the 70-200VR II ...

this is just my humble opinion ...

ziggy53

The "reciprocity rule" for hand-held photography holds pretty well for these 70-200mm(ish) lenses:

1/focal-length shutter speed is considered minimum for un-assisted hand-held photography. (That rule fails at focal lengths shorter than 60mm, or so, when camera shake may become evident with any lens and a shutter speed longer than 1/60th. In other words, you may experience "camera" shake with any unassisted lens at 1/30th or longer, regardless of focal length.)

In those instances, requiring longer shutter speeds for exposure, if the subject matter is not in motion (no stabilization helps with moving subjects, except perhaps to stabilize one axis of panning motion), active stabilization may help.

As usual, a tripod (mechanical stabilization) is much better stabilization as appropriate, but is often not as convenient as in-lens or in-camera stabilization.

Shooting stance and technique also plays a factor, as does shooter ability. (Some people can hold stability longer than others.)

T. Bombadil

lifeinfocus wrote: »

i am considering investing in one of these two lenses:
AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II, or
AF Zoom-Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D ED

Price difference is about $1,200 more for the VR lens. I have the Nikon 70-300mm VR so I have experienced vibration reduction.

For the above two lenses when does it become valuable to have VR capability? I am considering using it for indoor events, sports and portrait work. In other words, lots of possible uses.

Is there a certain shutter speed when it becomes valuable? Any and all comments are welcome.

Phil

[/SIZE]

I have used the 70-300 a lot, and recently acquired the 70-200. I never had the impression that the VR on the 70-300 was doing much of anything (to be honest, it might not have been working at all - and I'm not sure I would have known, being a rank amateur).

What I am a little more sure of is that you probably will not use the VR for sports. Having VR turned on can delay auto focus. You are likely to use a fast shutter speed (to freeze action) that will be fast enough to permit hand-holding of the camera. At least, that has been the compromise I struck.

perroneford

In the sports world, VR is a hindrance. Some pros go so far as to shut it off and TAPE it off so it doesn't move. I have the 70-200 and the 80-200. Both are good lenses. The 80-200 is built the old fashioned way and I love that. But the 70-200 is better optically. It will cost you more, but it can REALLY be worth it. For a non-pro, I'd say buy the 80-200 and be done with it. I keep mine in the bag at all times as a backup. No electronic gizmos to get in the way. But then I keep a manual 300mm in the bag too for the same reasons.

Qarik

I never use it and that is from event type photographer. Good shooting technique will let you shoot sharp at 1/100s at 200mm. Plus any movement in the subject matter is going to be an issue at shutter speeds where VR is in effect. The only instances where I see VR useful is if you are shooting static subjects at night in available light. Thats said it is still nice to have in a crunch

angevin1

lifeinfocus wrote: »

portrait work.
Phil

Phil, that's about the size of it! I owned and used both lenses. VR2/80-200. With each iteration I believe Nikon puts a little more magic in their lenses. Nano-coatings & so forth. I can show you portraits that I think would be hard to tell the difference in which lens I was using (SOOC).

But in portraiture, I found it really helpful to have VR. 200mm with the Subject just ten feet away, can have a tendency to have your lens swaying sometime (depending on many things).
VR kept me more stable in those tenuous situations.

Tim Kamppinen

Qarik wrote: »

I never use it and that is from event type photographer. Good shooting technique will let you shoot sharp at 1/100s at 200mm. Plus any movement in the subject matter is going to be an issue at shutter speeds where VR is in effect. The only instances where I see VR useful is if you are shooting static subjects at night in available light. Thats said it is still nice to have in a crunch

I have the 80-200, and it's a great lens, but I still rent the 70-200 VRII for weddings, for two reasons. First, the VR really is useful as far as I'm concerned. Sure, I can take sharp shot at 200mm and 1/100 of a second... but not every time, and certainly not with much consistency during the chaos of a wedding day. For weddings, I find that the minimum shutter speed to freeze the motion of a bride and groom in low light is often much lower than what I can hand hold without VR. If they're just standing at the altar, 1/30 might be plenty, but I sure can't hand hold that at 200mm from the back of a dark church. With the 70-200, it's possible.

The other reason is that the lens coatings are so great that the 70-200 handle flare about a million times better than my 80-200. Considering that I use a lot of off camera flash at receptions and I like to shoot directly into it a lot of the time, this is a big deal for me. Of course it also helps shooting into the sun, etc. The 80-200 really sucks for shooting into light. The contrast drops to almost nothing and the files look like crap. You can bring the contrast back in post but it degrades the image quality quite a bit and it's really hard to get it to look anything close to normal. With the 70-200, it just looks great right out of camera.

It's an amazing lens and I hope to own it one day instead of having to rent it. But for $2400 it's hard to justify right now when most of what I do is portraits and I have plenty of time and control over the light for that.

lifeinfocus

Thanks All for Your Repllies
Thanks to all for you excellent replies.

Now I need to take the steps, decide and move forward. I really enjoy photography and need to take the step.

Phil