nikon 70-200 2.8 vs 80-200 2.8
Oct 12, 2014 18:00:07 #
Why the difference and which is a better lens? Help please
the 80-200 is less expensive
the 80-200 is less expensive
Oct 12, 2014 19:07:13 #
amehta
Loc: Boston
Davet wrote:
Why the difference and which is a better lens? Help please
the 80-200 is less expensive
the 80-200 is less expensive
The Nikon 80-200mm does not have VR, both Nikon 70-200mm lenses do.
Oct 12, 2014 19:50:06 #
Oct 12, 2014 19:53:35 #
Oct 12, 2014 19:54:09 #
Oct 12, 2014 19:58:48 #
lighthouse
Loc: No Fixed Abode
amehta wrote:
:thumbup:
I like the simple answers. ;-)
I like the simple answers. ;-)
And now for the difficulty ...... it could be that the 80-200 2.8 is a very good trade off, offering very similar image quality for a much less price.
Oct 12, 2014 20:02:32 #
amehta
Loc: Boston
lighthouse wrote:
And now for the difficulty ...... it could be that the 80-200 2.8 is a very good trade off, offering very similar image quality for a much less price.
True, I definitely punted on the harder part. :lol:
Oct 12, 2014 20:04:13 #
Oct 12, 2014 20:15:05 #
amehta
Loc: Boston
Davet wrote:
For that long of a lens wouldn't the VR be very important?
VR is important for a small set of conditions, though those conditions can occur quite often:
1. hand-held or on a monopod
2. shutter speeds of about 1/200 - 1/30s
3. a subject which is stationary in those timescales
For people who are shooting indoor sports, for example, VR is often a hindrance because it increases the shutter lag and doesn't do anything about the moving athletes. If someone says, I want to shoot my granddaughter playing basketball and want to control costs, the 80-200mm without VR could be an excellent option.
Oct 12, 2014 20:59:14 #
lighthouse
Loc: No Fixed Abode
Davet wrote:
For that long of a lens wouldn't the VR be very important?
Helpful ?- yes, with some shots.
Very important ?- not so much at 200mm.
I find it helpful with my 500mm lens. Amazing actually.
I have no trouble using my 200mm F/2.8 without it.
People took wonderful photos for years before VR, IS, VC, OS were perfected by using good shooting techniques.
All of those good shooting techniques are still available.
If you can use those techniques to bring a $2700 purchase down to $800 then thats a good thing isn't it?
Oct 12, 2014 21:37:35 #
Davet wrote:
Why the difference and which is a better lens? Help please
the 80-200 is less expensive
the 80-200 is less expensive
There are several differences.
The 80-200mm f/2.8D AF-D lens will not AF on D3xxx or D5xxxx cameras that have no motor build into the camera body.
The 80-200mm is not as sharp as either of the 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses.
The 80-200mm AF-D version occasionally refuses to AF at focusing distances close the it's minimum.
The 80-200mm AF-S cannot be repaired due to a lack of spare parts for the focusing motor.
The 70-200mm f/2.8G VR (the first verson) vignettes significantly when used on an FX body.
The 70-200mm f/2.8G VRII (the current version) has significantly more effect from "focus breathing" than the previous models.
The 70-200mm f/2.8G VRII is significantly sharper, and with less vignetting, towards the edges. This presents rather astoundingly when used with a teleconverter (where it is much sharper than previous models are with a teleconverter).
Recommendations:
For a less expensive lens, have no fear of investing in a two ring 80-200mm f/2.8D ED AF-D.
With a DX body there is almost no benefit to the current VRII version of the 70-200mm f/2.8 over the first (VR) version of the 70-200mm.
With an FX body, choose the 80-200mm f/2.8 for economy or the 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII for higher quality images. (Skip the original VR model of the 70-200mm.)
Oct 13, 2014 06:28:22 #
Davet wrote:
Why the difference and which is a better lens? Help please
the 80-200 is less expensive
the 80-200 is less expensive
Lots of focus breathing as you approach 200mm with the 70-200 VR II - at 200 and minimum focus distance it becomes a 135mm.
The 80-200 AF-S is probably the best to come from Nikon, optically speaking, even with out the ED elements and Nano coating. The 80-200 AF-D is also a great lens, but it's AF performance is entirely dependent on the body, it does not have a focusing motor.
All of the AF-S models are pro-build, weather and dust sealed lenses, The AF-D is not.
I used to use the single focus/zoom ring version of the AF-D pretty good lens. I now have the AF-D, and no complaints there - I have rented the 70-200s didn't find the VR I to be an improvement, and have issues with that focus breathing on the VR II, but I am picking nits - all of these are excellent lenses.
Oct 13, 2014 06:55:05 #
DxO doesn't have a test of the 80-200, so I selected the F/2.8 and F/2.4 for comparison.
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-AF-S-Nikkor-70-200mm-F28-G-ED-VR-II-on-Nikon-D610-versus-Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-70-200mm-F4G-ED-VR-on-Nikon-D610___406_915_1071_915
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-AF-S-Nikkor-70-200mm-F28-G-ED-VR-II-on-Nikon-D610-versus-Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-70-200mm-F4G-ED-VR-on-Nikon-D610___406_915_1071_915
Oct 13, 2014 07:42:38 #
Oct 13, 2014 07:59:34 #
I have the 80 - 200 mm f2.8 lens, use it on my D300s a DX camera & I can attest that it's damn quick & tack sharp, in fact I have not had any problems with it at all maybe I am just ignorant of problems & hadn't noticed but I'll email anyone pics I took with that combo & you can judge for yourselves.!!
3 pics I took with at at the Jones Beach Air Show back in May 2014 at different focal lengths the last one almost 100' overhead.!
Joe
3 pics I took with at at the Jones Beach Air Show back in May 2014 at different focal lengths the last one almost 100' overhead.!
Joe
100 yds away
a fly by 75 yds away
a little camera shake here from changing focal lengths
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.