Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 vs 80-200 f/2.8
Aug 20, 2012 22:32:00 #
Calling all you Nikonians. Need help, please. Besides the VR and range, is their enough difference to justify over twice the cost? Thanks. OK, GO!
Aug 20, 2012 22:41:06 #
I can only answer that by saying I know of several successful pros that still shoot with the 80-200 and get wonderful images. I have the first generation 70-200 and get wonderful images, I have some friends that have the new - 2nd generation VRII 70-200 and get...you guessed it...wonderful images.
That 80-200 is still a great lens. Newer stuff has the VR and some optical improvements, but worth the cost difference? I have no idea. Do you need VR?
If you regularly make big prints (16x20 and up) then maybe the best glass is important. If you make 4x6's, save your money and buy the 55-200. Really.
That 80-200 is still a great lens. Newer stuff has the VR and some optical improvements, but worth the cost difference? I have no idea. Do you need VR?
If you regularly make big prints (16x20 and up) then maybe the best glass is important. If you make 4x6's, save your money and buy the 55-200. Really.
Aug 21, 2012 06:20:22 #
Hi Devo. I can't vouch for the 80-200 2.8 ,but I can vouch for the Nikon 70-200 vr (not vrii) . I bought mine on eBay. After much deliberation and research on all 70-200 2.8 from Tamron, Sigma and Nikon. My brother has the Sigma and a D 700 and I have the Nikon and a D 90 and were have gone out together. We have swapped lenses and bodies and we both decided the Nikon was a little sharper and faster. I couldn't justify the price of the vrii new or second hand.
An Australian guy (thatNikonguy) posted a test on YouTube. He tested the Sigma, Tamron and Nikon vrii.
I hope this helps ,i f not mess with you head even more.
An Australian guy (thatNikonguy) posted a test on YouTube. He tested the Sigma, Tamron and Nikon vrii.
I hope this helps ,i f not mess with you head even more.
Aug 21, 2012 11:03:40 #
Aug 21, 2012 13:43:41 #
I have an older AF model 80-200 it is tack sharp I love this lens for portraits. I also shot bull riding at night in a outdoor arena and loved the results. Bought it used for 400. It a great lens.
Aug 21, 2012 13:57:15 #
CSI Dave
Loc: Arizona
devolution wrote:
Calling all you Nikonians. Need help, please. Besides the VR and range, is their enough difference to justify over twice the cost? Thanks. OK, GO!
Good question, I've wondered this myself. I own the old 80-200 (push-pull zoom), got a mint condition one on ebay for $450. It's surprisingly sharp. Focus is slower and noisier than the new ones, but I'm still able to get perfect-focus action shots. I've also used the newer 80-200 (two ring design, no VR). It focuses faster and quieter, but it's tough to see much difference in the optics. I haven't used the 70-200, so of course my Lens Acquisition Syndrome keeps urging me to upgrade just to find out how good it is. My wallet, though, has been telling me to wait. ;-)
Aug 21, 2012 14:19:03 #
Opticallly, there is not that much difference between my 80-200 on-touch and the 70-200 VR.
The older lens focuses slower and has no VR so I rarely use it. I take it to scout camp with my old D200.
The VR & faster focusing make the newer one the one to buy in my book.
I do this for a living and sometimes shoot inside in low light situations. If you do most of your shooting outside during the day and don't make big prints, as the Captain said, a less expensive lens like the 55-200 would be enough for most folk.
The older lens focuses slower and has no VR so I rarely use it. I take it to scout camp with my old D200.
The VR & faster focusing make the newer one the one to buy in my book.
I do this for a living and sometimes shoot inside in low light situations. If you do most of your shooting outside during the day and don't make big prints, as the Captain said, a less expensive lens like the 55-200 would be enough for most folk.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.