whitewolfowner

Go with the 80-200 f2.8. VR is not that critical in that mm range and for the type of shooting you do, especially the sports, the VR will not help you anyways but that extra f stop will. Remember that VR only helps with motion that you create; not the motion created with the subject. The same would apply for street shooting, especially at night. You also gain the wether sealing and a professional lens built like a tank, so it will last a lifetime and more if taken care of. Also, consider the 80-200 f2.8D EDIF AF-S lens released in 1998. Optically, it is the cream of the crop of lenses in this range and the auto focus is lightning fast for sports. You can also save a few bucks finding this lens used in excellent condition. It goes for around $1000 if you can find one.

If you want a f4.0 version, find used the 70-210 f4.0 lens. It is very light weight and is very sharp wide open at all ranges. It lacks a little bit of contrast of the ED lenses but is easily made up for in software. I used this lens myself for years and my son has used it to shoot Nascar. Many shots from this lens have been published in newspapers, magazines and on the internet along side pro lenses and no one would ever know. This lens has a cult following it is so good and can be had (if you can find one) for around $200 in excellent condition. It is one of Nikon's "sleeper" lenses and is not well known.

Dan De Lion Loc: Montana

-----

Two years ago I sold my 80-200 f2.8 Nikkor and bought a 70-200 f4. The 70-200 is much lighter, handles much better, is much sharper (see DXOmark ratings), focusing is three or four times faster, and has VR. The 70-200 is a delight to use whereas the 80-200 was a chore to use.

With today's high ISO cameras there is very little need for, the less than sharp, f2.8 stop. Definitely go with the 70-200, you'll love it.

-----

MtnMan Loc: ID

VR stabilizes the image in the viewfinder. I like that even when using a high shutter speed.

But I can see where f2.8 is needed...at least for basketball. I tried some with my Grandson last Saturday using a lens at min f-stop around 4, 1/400s, and auto iso. All the images used ISO 6400 which isn't the greatest on a Micro 4/3.

I could have gotten by with a stop less on shutter speed because I didn't need full zoom on the 45-200 lens. In fact most were at 45mm so 1/250 would have been OK to stop most subject motion. The images are better at ISO 3200 and fairly good at ISO 1600. The lens has OS but it isn't as good as the VR on my Nikons.

HertzSone Loc: West of the Cascades

Thanks to all who took the time to respond. You guys are great in sharing all your experience and knowledge. I don't feel 100% in my decision to go with the f/4 AF-S, but the good thing is, if down the road it doesn't meet my needs as I think it will, I can let it go on the used market and get a faster model. Now I can get the lens ordered as well as a filter size adapter!

BebuLamar

If it's me I definitely pick the 80-200 f/2.8D but I am sure you are not me. The old lens is much better built and I don't need VR nor fast AF. It also focus closer and doesn't have as much focus breathing. I also like the aperture ring so I can use it on my F3. It won't AF on the D3xxx and D5xxx but then I am unlikely to ever own one of those and I can manual focus too.

bettis1 Loc: Texas

As a very satisfied user of the 70-200 f4 I would certainly pick that one. The VR will more than make up for the one stop smaller hole in the end and it is a joy to hand hold. Many reviews rank the results from the 70-200 f4 more favorably than those from the 70-200 f2.8

Bob

John Geyer

f 2.8 is a larger f stop not a lower f .stop

Larry L56 Loc: NE Ohio

I have used the 80-200 f2.8D for years. It has some limitations like the sharpness dropping off after 140mm at f2.8. Mine is now slipping in manual focus mode. If you plan to do weddings, the F2.8 is a big plus and like mentioned above, VR will not help with subject movement and wind. I rarely have a VR need since I went full frame, I can push my ISO higher using my Df body, still getting excellent results. IMO, VR is a big cost in money, weight, and another thing to break.

bettis1 Loc: Texas

John,

I'm not sure whether you were responding to my post or not. If so, perhaps you misread my statement that there is "one stop smaller hole in the end" of the f4 lens than in the f2.8. That differential is more than made up for with the VR on the f4 lens (particularly if you are using a modern DSLR with excellent ISO capabilities).

Bob

wingclui44 Loc: CT USA

I think it can be expanded like this: 'larger f stop' means higher number of the "f" means smaller aperture opening. Like f32, the aperture opening is much smaller than the lower number f2.8. Then the other way, 'lower f stop' means small number of the "f", means bigger opening of the aperture. Like f1.4 or f2.8, the aperture opening is much bigger than the Higher number f32. It's only my share of understanding.

bettis1 Loc: Texas

I specifically avoided using "higher" or "lower" in my comments and only spoke of the size of the opening (aperture) in the lens. We compound the misunderstanding when we incorrectly post an F stop as: f2.8 or f4. The F stop is a ratio and the correct way to denote it is: f1/2.8 or f1/4. When you realize that, it is easy to see that it is a fraction and when the integer 1 is divided by a larger number it yields a smaller number.

Bob

Ira

I have the the 70-200 f4 and like it. It is ultra sharp and very light. A great travel lens.
Here is what Ken Rockwell thought of it.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70-200mm-f4.htm

Bugfan Loc: Toronto, Canada

The 70-200 f2.8 as far as I know is weather sealed too, that is the new one with the VR2.

To answer your question, I would avoid f4 lenses unless you consistently work in good light and even then it makes me uncomfortable

So that leaves oyou f2.8 choices. Personally I use the 70-200 f2.8 VRII and have done for about three years. I also have the F2.8 24-70 mm and the f2.8 14-24mm. Those give me a good range and excellent images.

I do own the older version of the 80-200 but frankly I`ve never liked it much and even less when I got the new telephoto.

One other thing ... I have camera bodies from Nikon that are also weather and dust sealed. I have several lenses in that category too. Weather and dust sealed doesn`t mean impervious to problems. You can`t drop them in a lake of use them in the middle of a typhoon. I to take them out when it`s raining but raining lightly. I do use them in dusty dirty places and they resist the dust too. But you still have to take precautions.

Ira

Here is a shot I took in low light with the 70-200 f4 in low light -ISO 3200
https://www.flickr.com/photos/129992705@N03/24579390670/in/datetaken/

therwol Loc: USA

VR is not intended for shutter speeds of 1/500 or faster. In fact, there are a number of articles on the web explaining that using VR at high shutter speeds degrades sharpness. For example http://www.bythom.com/nikon-vr.htm VR is useful under challenging lighting conditions where you may not have access to a tripod. As others have mentioned, it doesn't sharpen moving subjects, only camera movement. If you're going to shoot sports at high shutter speeds, it has no value.