Request for Nikon Info: 80-200/2.8 v. 70-200/2.8 VR

HarveyMushman

Does anyone have experience with both? Aside from the VR function, how do they compare? Specifically, are the AF speeds similar? Optics? The primary use would be motorsports, so AF speed is important to me. There's a huge price difference between the two--$800 v. $1,600--so I'm wondering if I'd be okay with the less expensive lens if I decide I don't need the VR.

DoctorIt

I've never used the 80-200, so I can't give you a comparison. I will say that my 70-200VR focused faster than anything I've ever used before. If you spring for that one up front, I can't imagine you'd be disappointed, nor would you ever be thinking you needed an upgrade.

HarveyMushman

DoctorIt wrote:

I've never used the 80-200, so I can't give you a comparison. I will say that my 70-200VR focused faster than anything I've ever used before. If you spring for that one up front, I can't imagine you'd be disappointed, nor would you ever be thinking you needed an upgrade.

That is not the answer I wanted!

DoctorIt

HarveyMushman wrote:

That is not the answer I wanted!

Yeah, I figured. Sorry.

There's gotta be someone on this board who's used them both. I know from what I read, the 80 is a fabulous lens, but I'll be my bottom dollar that for really fast sports, most people will recommend the newer faster and VR equipped 70. If you were only occasionally doing fast sports, you probably wouldn't notice, but I know you, most of the reason you want this is for those motorcycle racing shots!

Harryb

I have the 70-200 2.8 and its a superb lens. I can't say enough good things about it. I have never used the 80-200 but its supposed to be a fine lens also. Some shooters prefer it to the 70-200.

Bjorn Roslett has reviews of these lenses here: http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html

Seymore

80-200 Afs...
I do have the 80-200/2.8 AFS and I guess it all depends on if you need the VR and what you're shooting. I've found that a monopod is my VR. But I don't do a lot of low-light without a mono or tripod. I have shot with the 80-200/2.8 D lens... and the AFS is noticeably quicker on focus. And it's so much quieter.

Oh... and how much are you prepared to spend? I got my AFS for <$1000.

Here are my AFS examples.

Handheld...

Tripod'd...

HarveyMushman

Thanks, all.

Seymore, Nikon doesn't sell the AFS 80-200 anymore (the 70-200 VR replaced it), so I'd have to find a nice used one. Might be worth finding. It seems the new 70-200 VR is a very fine lens, if you can afford it. I might be able to come Spring. I don't absolutely need VR but it'd be nice to have along with the super-quick AF and groovy glass.

ziggy53

The local newspaper uses Nikon D2H cameras with the Nikkor 80-200mm, f2.8 ED, and I can vouch that it is a very fast combination, about as fast as my Canon 1D MKII with the 70-200mm, f2.8L combination. They, and I, are able to track football players in night lighting at 8fps.

I understand that there are many different versions of the Nikkor 80-200mm zoom, detailed here:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/80200.htm

The AF-D version is still available new:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?A=ShowProduct&kw=NI8020028DAQ&Q=&O=&sku=124669
http://www.adorama.com/NK80200AFN.html

ziggy53

xtnomad

Harryb wrote:

I have the 70-200 2.8 and its a superb lens. I can't say enough good things about it. I have never used the 80-200 but its supposed to be a fine lens also. Some shooters prefer it to the 70-200.

Bjorn Roslett has reviews of these lenses here: http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html

I think the review is a honest review and swayed me to buy the VR. I read a lot of reviews on both. After my first day with the VR shooting motorcycles the only thing i had to decide was If I could make 200mm work, i had to get a littel closer but thought the VR made a differance in my shooting. Would love to get a larger VR but would have to sell a kidney or some thing. Just my two cents.

jthomas

There's a nice 80-200 2.8 AF-D available at Nikon Cafe.