Classifieds: Latest Ads Forums Discussions Camera Equipment SLR/DSLR Lenses Nikkor 80-200 vs 70-200

Viewing 30 reply threads

Nikkor 80-200 vs 70-200

  • Author
    Posts
    • wchampion
      Participant
      Post count: 13

      Which is better?
      Is VR that important on the 70-200, or is the better quality glass on the 80-200 more important. I am not against the VR but i do believe that its something that can go wrong. I think the build quality on the 80-200 is superior to that of the 70-200.

    • Geurt
      Participant
      Post count: 1101

      You have to be more specific, there are 3 different 80-200 versions. There is a push pull version which is sadly not up to scratch, then there is a AF-D version which are good to very good and then the AF-S version which is very good and comparable to the VR version in general AF speed and image quality.

    • wchampion
      Participant
      Post count: 13

      The two that i am talking about are:

      AF Zoom-Nikkor 80-200mm F/2.8 ED

      and

      AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-200mm F/2.8 IF-ED

      sorry i wasn’t aware of the 3rd version.

    • Jola
      Participant
      Post count: 3485

      And the 70-200VR will compete with anything out there on a DX camera.

      http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_70-200_2p8_vr_n15/page7.asp

      It is only with FX that some vignetting and less sharp corners creep in.

      Personally, the VR is important to me, I mostly use a lens like the 70-200 handheld.

    • Fanie
      Participant
      Post count: 944

      The AFS 80-200 is great optically, and if you are not going to photograph still standing subjects at low shutter speeds, the 80-200 is great. That being said there will soon probably be some 70-200 VR coming onto the second hand market as people upgrade to the newer version.

      On DX sensor cameras the 70-200 VR works very very well, but costs a lot more than the 80-200, its you’re choice if you want to pay the premium for the VR function.

    • wchampion
      Participant
      Post count: 13

      @Jola 169053 wrote:

      ….

      It is only with FX that some vignetting and less sharp corners creep in.

      Personally, the VR is important to me, I mostly use a lens like the 70-200 handheld.

      This is the thing, i currently use the D100 and D200, but am planing on getting the D700. With the D700 and the high ISO, is VR even necessary?

      and do these lens’s perform well with the AF Teleconverters, although you will loose some IQ of the lens when the AF Teleconverter is attached.

    • Jola
      Participant
      Post count: 3485

      It works well with the TC1.4X, and some people say with the TC1.7X as well, but I don’t use it with that TC.

      BTW, if you use a TC then the vignetting and soft corners get cut off, so that the 70-200VR can compete with anything out there, even on FX, if you use a TC. Remembering, of course, the disadvantages of TC’s (slower AF, some softness, etc).

      Of course, you can wait for the new 70-200VR II, but if you look at the exorbitant D300s pricing by Nikon SA, the new lens will probably cost R28667 (straight extrapolation of D300s pricing).

    • wchampion
      Participant
      Post count: 13

      I will do some more research before i commit. But i think its going to be the 80-200mm, and the D700.

    • mikeH
      Participant
      Post count: 431

      i have the 80-200 non vr i will not even swop it for a d3x you can get a 3x anywere but my 80-200 is not made anymore it is faster and sharper than the new 80-200 vr.heavy as hell it is the price you pay for metal and glass.

    • Geurt
      Participant
      Post count: 1101

      @mikeH 169066 wrote:

      …. new 80-200 vr….

      Possibly you mean 70-200 VR;)

      I’ve researched this topic to near death. I’ll grab a good 80-200 AF-S at a drop of the hat if in very good nic and well priced (aka less than R12k) else I’ll wait for the new 70-200 VR II. The 80-200 AF-D is noisy in focusing (using internal camera motor) and AF is a lot slower in comparison to VR models and hunts in low light, the reason why you’d like to have f2.8, is it not. However, you should get very good 80-200 AF-D for less than R7.5K imported via KEH in the US.

    • Jola
      Participant
      Post count: 3485

      @mikeH 169066 wrote:

      it is faster and sharper than the new 80-200 vr.

      A bit of a bold statement to make considering that nobody has even tested the new lens :confused:

      The new lenses have nano-coatings and other new technology, as well as being optimised for digital, so you can’t realistically expect the old 80-200 to be competitive with a new 70-200VR II.

    • mikeH
      Participant
      Post count: 431

      ok of the current lens,when it is here i will test it and see if mine is no longer the best in the 80-200 range.

    • wchampion
      Participant
      Post count: 13

      @Geurt 169070 wrote:

      Possibly you mean 70-200 VR;)

      I’ve researched this topic to near death. I’ll grab a good 80-200 AF-S at a drop of the hat if in very good nic and well priced (aka less than R12k) else I’ll wait for the new 70-200 VR II. The 80-200 AF-D is noisy in focusing (using internal camera motor) and AF is a lot slower in comparison to VR models and hunts in low light, the reason why you’d like to have f2.8, is it not. However, you should get very good 80-200 AF-D for less than R7.5K imported via KEH in the US.

      so you would get the Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-S over the AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-200mm F/2.8 IF-ED, seems like the 80-200 AF-S is hard to come by.

    • Geurt
      Participant
      Post count: 1101

      @wchampion 169084 wrote:

      so you would get the Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-S over the AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-200mm F/2.8 IF-ED, seems like the 80-200 AF-S is hard to come by.

      Let me qualify, I’ll take an AF-S on full frame camera above the current VR model.

      As to availability, there are some AF-S lenses available in the US but at prices very close to a new VR ie US$1550 to US$1750 (new VR mark I is going for US$1899). So, prices indicate that the AF-S lenses are still highly sought after in the US anyway and then I have yet to see an AF-S offered for sale in the RSA.

    • wchampion
      Participant
      Post count: 13

      Ok, ic. so i need to hunt down a 80-200 AF-S :)
      Why does nikon still sell the 80-200 AF-D and not the AF-S, guess its to try and sell the more expensive 70-200 VR.

    • mikeH
      Participant
      Post count: 431

      that is why i have the s can use it on full frame or not.

    • BrandonH
      Participant
      Post count: 62

      I have the 80-200 afs and I can tell you it is a fantastic lens. On my D700 it produces superb results and I won’t be in the queue for the new 70-200 vrII.

    • Irene McCullagh
      Participant
      Post count: 982

      I have the 80-200 D and while I love the glass, I do find it very heavy.

    • Peter Betts
      Participant
      Post count: 1250

      @Fanie 169056 wrote:

      That being said there will soon probably be some 70-200 VR coming onto the second hand market as people upgrade to the newer version.

      My 70-200 VR I has already come and gone on the market in advance of the announcement of the VRII for FX so as to maximise sale price… Made R 6000 over what I paid originally in the end…Now the price on the VRI will have fallen a lot because of the coming VRII

    • Jola
      Participant
      Post count: 3485

      @Peter Betts 169130 wrote:

      Now the price on the VRI will have fallen a lot because of the coming VRII

      Don’t think so, the 70-200VR II may end up costing over R28 000, so the VR I prices may remain high.

    • Fanie
      Participant
      Post count: 944

      @Peter Betts 169130 wrote:

      My 70-200 VR I has already come and gone on the market in advance of the announcement of the VRII for FX so as to maximise sale price… Made R 6000 over what I paid originally in the end…Now the price on the VRI will have fallen a lot because of the coming VRII

      What did you sell for Peter?, I personally belief that lens will always be in high demand given the expensive price new.

      On Dx its a classic, one of those you keep for ever.

    • Anonymous
      Guest
      Post count: 9072

      @Jola 169132 wrote:

      Don’t think so, the 70-200VR II may end up costing over R28 000, so the VR I prices may remain high.

      My take on it too Johann. After much thought I decided that the small and insignificant irritant of correcting any vignetting occurring, in the very small percentage of images in which it was apparent, using NX 2 wasn’t worth selling the Mk1 and waiting for the up grade. The MK1 may even see an increase in its 2nd hand value if the MK 11 is significantly higher priced as you suggest.

    • Peter Betts
      Participant
      Post count: 1250

      @Jola 169132 wrote:

      Don’t think so, the 70-200VR II may end up costing over R28 000, so the VR I prices may remain high.

      $ 2399 @ R 7.7 = R18472 plus VAT and about $ 120 shipping = R22 000 max max..I couldnt live with myself paying R 28000

    • Peter Betts
      Participant
      Post count: 1250

      @Fanie 169135 wrote:

      What did you sell for Peter?, I personally belief that lens will always be in high demand given the expensive price new.

      On Dx its a classic, one of those you keep for ever.

      Agree on my D200 it was killer and even on FX and a 1.4x it is WOW just brilliant but by itself even with max Vignette control on the D700 …quite a lot of darkening in the corner…I got R18 500…quick sale to beat the opposition starting to flood the classifieds at that time there are only so many who will buy that lens as good as it is..now I guess I would be very cheeky asking R15000 with the announcement now official..I needed to maximise sale to get the most to have 2 months living expenses taken care of

    • Peter Betts
      Participant
      Post count: 1250

      @substar 169126 wrote:

      I have the 80-200 D and while I love the glass, I do find it very heavy.

      Dont let anyone kid you that lens isa classic and just the best..I only upgraded for the AF in sport photography:cool:

    • Geurt
      Participant
      Post count: 1101

      @Peter Betts 169158 wrote:

      ….I only upgraded for the AF in sport photography…..

      Funny Peter, but I am pretty sure that the 80-200 D is an AF lens, so not sure why you make this statement!

    • Peter Betts
      Participant
      Post count: 1250

      @Geurt 169162 wrote:

      Funny Peter, but I am pretty sure that the 80-200 D is an AF lens, so not sure why you make this statement!

      It is Geurt but like my old 80-400 it wasnt AFS so hunted like hell…pity as it was killer sharp and soooo well made…like the proverbial Brick loo:D:D

    • Irene McCullagh
      Participant
      Post count: 982

      @Peter Betts 169163 wrote:

      It is Geurt but like my old 80-400 it wasnt AFS so hunted like hell…pity as it was killer sharp and soooo well made…like the proverbial Brick loo:D:D

      Yup *nods head* it does indeed hunt like hell.

    • Henner
      Participant
      Post count: 10

      Is this comparison still relevant because of the new Nikon 70-200 f2.8 lens has been launched but not yet tried and tested in this country?

    • Geurt
      Participant
      Post count: 1101

      @Henner 170500 wrote:

      Is this comparison still relevant because of the new Nikon 70-200 f2.8 lens has been launched but not yet tried and tested in this country?

      There is a test on the web, I’ll try to search for it. The advertised MTF charts shows an excellent result and I am positive it will be a better FF lens, rest assured, Nikon will not slip on that issue.

      However, do understand, the “old” VR is an excellent lens, it just had some vignetting due to its development requirement aka for 1.5x crop cameras. The older 80-200 D was developed for film bodies and thus true to FF requirements BUT damn slow AF.

    • Peter Betts
      Participant
      Post count: 1250

      @Geurt 170533 wrote:

      There is a test on the web, I’ll try to search for it. The advertised MTF charts shows an excellent result and I am positive it will be a better FF lens, rest assured, Nikon will not slip on that issue.

      However, do understand, the “old” VR is an excellent lens, it just had some vignetting due to its development requirement aka for 1.5x crop cameras. The older 80-200 D was developed for film bodies and thus true to FF requirements BUT damn slow AF.

      True Geurt the 80-200 AF D was superb on FF F5 camera and the 70-200 VR current model was brilliant on my D200….DX but not so on the D700…I would love to see that report on the new one if you find it… I reckon its a winner already but lets see first

Viewing 30 reply threads

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.Log In