AFD 80-200 or AFS 70-200

brandonb · 11th January 2006

If don't talk about VR, which one is worth to get ? Most of the review told that image quality is about the same. 80-200 slower, but how slow ? Anyone has did the side by side comparison here ?

Tango3 · 11th January 2006

I've had the use of both at one point in time. Since you're asking about focussing speed wise, I would say on a guessitmate that the AFS takes abt 75% of the time it takes the AFD one to lock on. Most of the time its probably even less than 1 sec, unless its really out of focus - thats where the AFS one shines in speed. I dont recall the AFS lens ever hunting too, while the AFD one hunts on occasion.

espn · 11th January 2006

Of course AF-S version.

I've tried nearly all the older AFs to the current make. 70-200VR rocks

wildstallion · 11th January 2006

another question you have to ask is do you have 3k to spend on a lens you can get for 1.6k for similar image quality but slightly slower (if forget about VR)

espn · 11th January 2006

Originally Posted by wildstallion

another question you have to ask is do you have 3k to spend on a lens you can get for 1.6k for similar image quality but slightly slower (if forget about VR)

You really think this comparison is only limited to such? Hmmmm....

wildstallion · 11th January 2006

Originally Posted by espn

You really think this comparison is only limited to such? Hmmmm....

no, need to take into consideration other stuff aswell just thats all the threadstater asked about, if i had the money would be 70-200 hands down no arguement, killer lens!

espn · 11th January 2006

Originally Posted by wildstallion

no, need to take into consideration other stuff aswell just thats all the threadstater asked about, if i had the money would be 70-200 hands down no arguement, killer lens!

Ah... got other stuffs to consider? How come you only mentioned slightly faster speed + similar image quality for both? Care to share?

reachme2003 · 11th January 2006

although the thread starter has not cited costs as a consideration, note that the afs costs about twice as much as the afd. i stand to be corrected if i am not accurate with the price comparison.

wildstallion · 11th January 2006

Originally Posted by espn

Ah... got other stuffs to consider? How come you only mentioned slightly faster speed + similar image quality for both? Care to share?

sure, will do, the 70-200 is slightly heavier than the 80-200 and if forgetting about VR means increase in camera shake at a slower shutter, also depends on needs of the photographer, if going to be shooting in bright daylight all the time th 80-200 would probably do a very good job for a much lower price. Also the 70-200 cosmetically looks better if the photographer concerned about looks. Also if going to be used in say shooting a concert then the 70-200 has the silent wave moter which will keep focusing noise very quite, the 80-200 will be slightly louder, if iam not mistaken. The 70-200 is also longer than the 80-200 so if photographer needs to use for trips, or to fit in current bag to save upgrading may choose the smaller lens.

Also can use the 70-200 with the new 1.7 AF-S Teleconvertor, if the photographer needs to increase focal length, e.g. the zoo

espn · 11th January 2006

Originally Posted by wildstallion

sure, will do, the 70-200 is slightly heavier than the 80-200 and if forgetting about VR means increase in camera shake at a slower shutter, also depends on needs of the photographer, if going to be shooting in bright daylight all the time th 80-200 would probably do a very good job for a much lower price. Also the 70-200 cosmetically looks better if the photographer concerned about looks. Also if going to be used in say shooting a concert then the 70-200 has the silent wave moter which will keep focusing noise very quite, the 80-200 will be slightly louder, if iam not mistaken. The 70-200 is also longer than the 80-200 so if photographer needs to use for trips, or to fit in current bag to save upgrading may choose the smaller lens.

Also can use the 70-200 with the new 1.7 AF-S Teleconvertor, if the photographer needs to increase focal length, e.g. the zoo

Hmmm... so to avoid handshake, get a lousier looking exterior, shorter body length and louder AF like the 80-200 is better than the 70-200VR. Ok ok.. thanks...

wildstallion · 11th January 2006

Originally Posted by espn

Hmmm... so to avoid handshake, get a lousier looking exterior, shorter body length and louder AF like the 80-200 is better than the 70-200VR. Ok ok.. thanks...

never said was better, but for the money its worth it!!!!, lousier looking exterior, shorter body, slightly slower AF and louder AF may not matter to some people!

wildstallion · 11th January 2006

what else should be considered when looking at these two lenses (excluding VR)?

TMC · 11th January 2006

AF-D is value for money at its price, good AF speed, great quality images and solid build.

AF-S: Fast AF, great image quality, solid build. At 3k for VR and AFS, think overpriced, if you can spare the money to pick up a 2nd hand lens that would be good.

Looks: AF-D exterior is rougher compared to the AF-S70-200Vr`s smooth exterior.

Weight: AF-S is heavier. Have to train handholding

Length: AF-S is longer especially with its hood on. Have to consider bag space as well.

All boils down to if you are willing to spend 3k on it or not. If you are just a regular hobbyists, I suggest the AF-D version. Or look around for a AF-S80-200 if you want faster AF speed.

simon80 · 11th January 2006

d70 + AFs
d200 + AFd

so which one will be faster?

Pls ignore if i ask a dumb q.

espn · 11th January 2006

Originally Posted by simon80

d70 + AFs
d200 + AFd

so which one will be faster?

Pls ignore if i ask a dumb q.

SWM is not only focusing speed nor quietly increase over non-SWMs, but also tracking speed involved when doing continous focusing. Single AF normally doesn't seem to make SWM look fast. However, try tracking + continous focusing, the SWM will kick butt more than non-SWMs. On pro bodies, SWM simply just kicks ass.

So if you want to say speed, definitely AF-S version wins by far, a lot more.

Saturation of images, colour re-production, sharpness and bokeh, the AF-S 80-200/70-200VR gives much better optimal performance as compared to the AF versions.

Build of the 70-200VR fits the hands better to zoom and to support the glass with the body attached with a right amount of CG balance at the tripod foot.

sykestang · 11th January 2006

For those who are interested in getting the AFS70-200VR, check out my offer here: http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=172053

I used to own the AFD80-200 and the AFS80-200. Also have borrowed the 70-200VR on many occasions. Here is my personal comments:
AFD80-200:
- Better flare control compared to both the AFS version. The HB-7 Hood is not necessary. In fact there is a rare metal screw-on hood for this lens as well, the HN-28.
- Sharp but slight CA.
- One must learn to hold the lens in correct holding position, else shoot min 1/200 for photos without hand shake. Unless mounted with monopod/tripod as support.

AFS80-200:
- Flare control lose out to the AFD version. Recommend to use the big flower hood at all times.
- very Sharp image, better contrast and color compared the AFD version.
- One must learn to hold the lens in correct position, else shoot min 1/200 for photos without hand shake. In fact the AFS80-200 is the most heavy among the 3 lens. Monopod/Tripod is recommended.

AFS70-200VR:
- Flare control lose out to the AFD version. Recommend to use the big flower hood at all times.
- very Sharp image, better contrast and color compared the AFD version. Similar to the AFS80-200
- With VR on, I can get good sharp pictures with shutter speed 1/30!!!

This is a must lens for indoor concert or church wedding at low light. The weight of this lens is in between the AFD80-200 and AFS80-200. However I don't quite like the length as it is the longest among the 3 lens.

Hope this summarised what you guys are looking for. However, I am no expert in testing lenses, the above are just my findings after owning and using them.

espn · 11th January 2006

I won't go too much into flare as it can be avoided easily and/or it has never happened to me in my usage of the AF-D/S 70/80-200 /VR. In short flare is nothing to worry about.

TMC · 11th January 2006

Originally Posted by sykestang

For those who are interested in getting the AFS70-200VR, check out my offer here: http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=172053

I used to own the AFD80-200 and the AFS80-200. Also have borrowed the 70-200VR on many occasions. Here is my personal comments:
AFD80-200:
- Better flare control compared to both the AFS version. The HB-7 Hood is not necessary. In fact there is a rare metal screw-on hood for this lens as well, the HN-28.
- Sharp but slight CA.
- One must learn to hold the lens in correct holding position, else shoot min 1/200 for photos without hand shake. Unless mounted with monopod/tripod as support.

AFS80-200:
- Flare control lose out to the AFD version. Recommend to use the big flower hood at all times.
- very Sharp image, better contrast and color compared the AFD version.
- One must learn to hold the lens in correct position, else shoot min 1/200 for photos without hand shake. In fact the AFS80-200 is the most heavy among the 3 lens. Monopod/Tripod is recommended.

AFS70-200VR:
- Flare control lose out to the AFD version. Recommend to use the big flower hood at all times.
- very Sharp image, better contrast and color compared the AFD version. Similar to the AFS80-200
- With VR on, I can get good sharp pictures with shutter speed 1/30!!! This is a must lens for indoor concert or church wedding at low light. The weight of this lens is in between the AFD80-200 and AFS80-200. However I don't quite like the length as it is the longest among the 3 lens.

Hope this summarised what you guys are looking for. However, I am no expert in testing lenses, the above are just my findings after owning and using them.

Good one. I love my bazooka a.k.a. AF-S 80-200 f2.8

laforge · 11th January 2006

Originally Posted by espn

I won't go too much into flare as it can be avoided easily and/or it has never happened to me in my usage of the AF-D/S 70/80-200 /VR. In short flare is nothing to worry about.

Very pro....

sykestang · 11th January 2006

Originally Posted by TMC

Good one. I love my bazooka a.k.a. AF-S 80-200 f2.8

I love it too...

Still missed the crinkle finish.

11th January 2006	#1
brandonb Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 316	AFD 80-200 or AFS 70-200 If don't talk about VR, which one is worth to get ? Most of the review told that image quality is about the same. 80-200 slower, but how slow ? Anyone has did the side by side comparison here ?

11th January 2006	#2
Tango3 Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Upper Thomson, Singapore Posts: 139	Re: AFD 80-200 or AFS 70-200 I've had the use of both at one point in time. Since you're asking about focussing speed wise, I would say on a guessitmate that the AFS takes abt 75% of the time it takes the AFD one to lock on. Most of the time its probably even less than 1 sec, unless its really out of focus - thats where the AFS one shines in speed. I dont recall the AFS lens ever hunting too, while the AFD one hunts on occasion.

11th January 2006	#3
espn Deregistered Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Planet Nikon Posts: 22,045	Re: AFD 80-200 or AFS 70-200 Of course AF-S version. I've tried nearly all the older AFs to the current make. 70-200VR rocks

11th January 2006	#4
wildstallion Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Clementi, Singapore Posts: 2,837	Re: AFD 80-200 or AFS 70-200 another question you have to ask is do you have 3k to spend on a lens you can get for 1.6k for similar image quality but slightly slower (if forget about VR)

11th January 2006	#8
reachme2003 Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 3,536	Re: AFD 80-200 or AFS 70-200 although the thread starter has not cited costs as a consideration, note that the afs costs about twice as much as the afd. i stand to be corrected if i am not accurate with the price comparison.

11th January 2006	#12
wildstallion Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Clementi, Singapore Posts: 2,837	Re: AFD 80-200 or AFS 70-200 what else should be considered when looking at these two lenses (excluding VR)? Last edited by wildstallion; 11th January 2006 at 10:38 PM.

11th January 2006	#13
TMC Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Beyond Space-Time Continuum Posts: 5,921	Re: AFD 80-200 or AFS 70-200 AF-D is value for money at its price, good AF speed, great quality images and solid build. AF-S: Fast AF, great image quality, solid build. At 3k for VR and AFS, think overpriced, if you can spare the money to pick up a 2nd hand lens that would be good. Looks: AF-D exterior is rougher compared to the AF-S70-200Vr`s smooth exterior. Weight: AF-S is heavier. Have to train handholding Length: AF-S is longer especially with its hood on. Have to consider bag space as well. All boils down to if you are willing to spend 3k on it or not. If you are just a regular hobbyists, I suggest the AF-D version. Or look around for a AF-S80-200 if you want faster AF speed. __________________ Selling: 32GB Thumbdrive - Patriot Xporter XT 120sgd (Price reduced)

11th January 2006	#14
simon80 Deregistered Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 1,501	Re: AFD 80-200 or AFS 70-200 d70 + AFs d200 + AFd so which one will be faster? Pls ignore if i ask a dumb q. Last edited by simon80; 11th January 2006 at 11:19 PM.

11th January 2006	#16
sykestang Contributor Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: studiospace Posts: 5,738	Re: AFD 80-200 or AFS 70-200 For those who are interested in getting the AFS70-200VR, check out my offer here: http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=172053 I used to own the AFD80-200 and the AFS80-200. Also have borrowed the 70-200VR on many occasions. Here is my personal comments: AFD80-200: - Better flare control compared to both the AFS version. The HB-7 Hood is not necessary. In fact there is a rare metal screw-on hood for this lens as well, the HN-28. - Sharp but slight CA. - One must learn to hold the lens in correct holding position, else shoot min 1/200 for photos without hand shake. Unless mounted with monopod/tripod as support. AFS80-200: - Flare control lose out to the AFD version. Recommend to use the big flower hood at all times. - very Sharp image, better contrast and color compared the AFD version. - One must learn to hold the lens in correct position, else shoot min 1/200 for photos without hand shake. In fact the AFS80-200 is the most heavy among the 3 lens. Monopod/Tripod is recommended. AFS70-200VR: - Flare control lose out to the AFD version. Recommend to use the big flower hood at all times. - very Sharp image, better contrast and color compared the AFD version. Similar to the AFS80-200 - With VR on, I can get good sharp pictures with shutter speed 1/30!!! This is a must lens for indoor concert or church wedding at low light. The weight of this lens is in between the AFD80-200 and AFS80-200. However I don't quite like the length as it is the longest among the 3 lens. Hope this summarised what you guys are looking for. However, I am no expert in testing lenses, the above are just my findings after owning and using them. __________________ Gallery: http://sykestang.clubsnap.org/gallery/Photography-Works http://www.studiospace.com.sg

11th January 2006	#17
espn Deregistered Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Planet Nikon Posts: 22,045	Re: AFD 80-200 or AFS 70-200 I won't go too much into flare as it can be avoided easily and/or it has never happened to me in my usage of the AF-D/S 70/80-200 /VR. In short flare is nothing to worry about.