nikon 70-200 2.8 vs 80-200 2.8 (Page 2): I got the AF 2 ring 80-200mm F2.8 ED... Love it..... Never really have the need for VR. I use it on a D300 as well as a D7100.... With the high...

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

I got the AF 2 ring 80-200mm F2.8 ED... Love it..... Never really have the need for VR. I use it on a D300 as well as a D7100.... With the high ISO capability of the D7100, not having VR has never been an issue. As for AF speed, yes the 70 to-200 might be a tad faster, but in my shooting, it's never been an issue. As an aside, if you go for the 80-200, get the 2 ring as it has a decent tripod foot. Oh, it's still offered (a non AF-S version) by Nikon even though there is the 70-200... Says volumes about it's optical quality...

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Screamin Scott wrote:

I got the AF 2 ring 80-200mm F2.8 ED... Love it...... (show quote)

The only downside of the 80-200 AF-D with two rings is that the thin ring that is used to switch from manual to auto focus will develop a fracture and eventually break. The location of the weak point is, if you have the lens on the camera and you are behind the camera, just to the left of the pin that you press to switch M to AF. My copy is 10 yrs old, I just put a tiny dab of JB Weld epoxy at that point when I saw the stress fracture develop (about 7 yrs ago) and it has been fine. The cost to repair this at an independent repair facility was estimated to be about $200.

OviedoPhotos

this is a great help to me also

RICHARD46 Loc: New Jersey

What is focus breathing and fungus
Thanks
Rich

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

Easyrider wrote:

What is focus breathing and fungus
Thanks
Rich

Fungus is a mould fungus growth inside the lens.
The death knell of a lens.

Focus breathing is when focusing changes the apparent focal length of the lens.
Because of the technical difficulties of making zoom lenses, very few of them stay at their marked maximum focal length when focused at close distances.
My Nikon 18-200mm was really at the equivalent of about 135mm when set on 200mm but focused at about 4 feet.
I believe someone used the same 135mm figure for the 70-200mm mark II in this thread.

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

See here (http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/focus_breathing_focal_length_changes.html) for focus breathing & here is a Zeiss article on fungus (http://www.zeiss.com/camera-lenses/en_us/website/service/fungus_on_lenses.html)

Easyrider wrote:

What is focus breathing and fungus
Thanks
Rich

Leon S Loc: Minnesota

My wife and I use both the 70-200 vrii and the 80-200d 2.8. Both are excellent lenses. We also have the original two ring 80-200. With a D700, D300, D200, D800, or D100, there is very little difference in their performance. For shooting stationary images, like portrates, I prefer the vrii model. For anything else I am very happy with the 80-200d version. In fact I prefer the d model. In my opinion, there are a lot of lenses that will produce pictures that out perform the current ability of the photographer. Lenses like the 70-210 f4, and f3.5-x.x and others. Sure its nice to have the 70-200 vrii, but it won't promise perfect shots. The most important thing is to learn and use good technique.

also tps

Don't know about better, but my "old" 80-200 f2.8D Auto Focuses just fine on my D300 (and my older D200).

The lens is sharp, and I CAN hand hold it. I prefer using a monopod, but do not "need" it.

The biggest drawback is the weight if you plan to carry it around all day. Still it makes up for the hassles by providing excellent photographs.

I have not compared it, but do you need the extra 10mm width? That answer might make your decision for you.

also tps

I quite agree. After dropping my 28-70 F2.8D (sob), I replaced it with an old 35-70 F3.5 AI. Although a manual focus, it meters on a D300 when set at A or M. (added the info to the non-cpu folder in set-up)

WOW.....VERY sharp images noticeably sharper than those by the newer lenses at this focal range. I like it as well or better than the 28-70 F2.8D even with the manual focus issues and having to actually think about setting the aperture ring.

I wonder, as we discuss lenses, how much of our collective thinking is driven by the 'anything new is better" syndrome?

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

I have a plethora of older MF lenses (including that 35-70 AI & the AFD F2.8 version).. When looking at newer lenses, most of the "improvements" are minimal. Proper technique trumps newer technology for most people. Many don't use their existing lenses to the top of the lenses capabilities. It would take huge enlargements or extreme pixel peeping to be able to discern improvements. They may be able to be shown in bench testing, but that's not the same as real world shooting...

also tps wrote:

I quite agree. After dropping my 28-70 F2.8D (sob... (show quote)

Leitz Loc: Solms

Screamin Scott wrote:

I have a plethora of older MF lenses (including that 35-70 AI & the AFD F2.8 version).. When looking at newer lenses, most of the "improvements" are minimal. Proper technique trumps newer technology for most people. Many don't use their existing lenses to the top of the lenses capabilities. It would take huge enlargements or extreme pixel peeping to be able to discern improvements. They may be able to be shown in bench testing, but that's not the same as real world shooting...

You and also tps are absolutely right. I also have the 35~70 f/3.5 (AIS version, which focuses closer than the AI), and have not found any newer lenses in that focal length range to be superior. That and the 50~135 f/3.5 are my two most used lenses.

pego99

I realize that the question was about comparing two 2.8 lenses but you might consider the Nikon 70-200 F4 VR as it is another way to save some money and have the VR capability.

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

I have that 50-135 AiS lens too....

Leitz wrote:

You and also tps are absolutely right. I also have the 35~70 f/3.5 (AIS version, which focuses closer than the AI), and have not found any newer lenses in that focal length range to be superior. That and the 50~135 f/3.5 are my two most used lenses.

kb6kgx Loc: Simi Valley, CA

amehta wrote:

the 80-200mm without VR could be an excellent option.

And, considering that, before digital, NO zoom lens (or prime, for that matter) had VR, so unless you need that extra 10mm at the wide end, save yourself some bucks and try to keep the lens steady. :)

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

Just a heads up, both the 80-200 (all fixed aperture versions) & the 35-70 ( all fixed aperture versions) are considered "professional" zooms... Many a journalist had them in their bags back in the day.