70-200mm VR or 80-200mm f2.8?

[viewtiful]

hi all,

need some advise over here. current in dilemma over which to purchase.... 70-200mm VR or 80-200mm f2.8? apart frm the budget, i cant make out my mind which to get? .. been doing some research and ppl saying that its not much of a diff apart frm the VR and the focusing speed. bros out there can give me some advise? hope i have made myslf very clear.thks

[nanotech]

Isn't the 70-200 VR the replacement, or at least, update, of the 80-200 AF-S?

Unless the 80-200 you're referring to is the AF-D one, which I think is still in production, and almost equally good to the AF-S except, well, it doesn't have a SWM, meaning it cannot do that manual focus override after having autofocused.

So if budget is not an issue, the 70-200 is a superior lens to both 80-200s by virtue of its VR feature alone, plus it has manual focus override which the 80-200 AF-D lacks. But I think it's almost twice as expensive as the 80-200 AF-D.

[kcuf2]

ok la...one is arnd 1600 and the other is abt 2800 in shops.

one has more good features than the other one at no disadvantage at all... naturally 70-200vr is the way to go if u have the budget.

for me, the manual override is very important and vr too. so up to u la, if $$ no problem, then no need to think already = 70-200vr.

[ziploc]

Actually when the AFS 70-200/2.8 VR just came out, we have done a comparison with the AFS 80-200/2.8, and the later has better bokeh. The 70-200 tends to have donut/moon shape bokeh under certain conditions.

[viewtiful]

Originally Posted by ziploc Actually when the AFS 70-200/2.8 VR just came out, we have done a comparison with the AFS 80-200/2.8, and the later has better bokeh. The 70-200 tends to have donut/moon shape bokeh under certain conditions.

you mean the review section? just read it... tot AFS discontinued already?

[viewtiful]

Originally Posted by nanotech Isn't the 70-200 VR the replacement, or at least, update, of the 80-200 AF-S? Unless the 80-200 you're referring to is the AF-D one, which I think is still in production, and almost equally good to the AF-S except, well, it doesn't have a SWM, meaning it cannot do that manual focus override after having autofocused. So if budget is not an issue, the 70-200 is a superior lens to both 80-200s by virtue of its VR feature alone, plus it has manual focus override which the 80-200 AF-D lacks. But I think it's almost twice as expensive as the 80-200 AF-D.

actually im buying for my company... budget not really a problem. but then u know bosses are rather careful when you talk bout money... usually they want cheap and good stuff..best of both loh... anyway ignorant to camera stuffs.... kindly explain to me whats manual focus override aft autofocusing? thks

[tanjonhan]

it means, when you half press the shutter button and holding it there, after the camera has locked focus by autofocus mode, you can switch over to manual focus by turning the focus ring, WITHOUT switching the focusing switch to manual..

[billone]

I think you summarised the answer in your question: the optical quality is close (tests show a minor advantage for the 70-200). The main differences are in the focusing speed and VR. The AF-S of the 70-200 motor is fast and allows you to adjust focus manually even when the lens and camera are in autofocus mode. However, it is less robust than the older focusing system (driven by a screw motor in the camera) and prone to the occasional (rare) electronic failure. VR stands for vibration reduction. It is excellent. However, there have been reports of its being damaged if the lens is unmounted from the camera while the camera is switched on. Once again: less robust than the 80-200. You choose: more high-tech, or more robust. The two are pretty much the same in terms of optical quality.

[Zeckson Chow]

I am not going to touch on this topic comparing specs by specs of both lenses. Both lenses are great. Let's look at things at a higher level.

If you are the photographer of your company, ask yourself these questions:

1. Is your company willing to pay the higher price of the lens after you have given the comparison analysis?
2. Are you going to complain on the additional weight of one lens over the other (one of them is heavier)?
3. What are the situations that you think you will be doing with the new lenses? Sports? Portraits? etc.
4. Do you have a crew with you to carry all the tripods, reflectors, backdrop papers or boards, light strobes, batteries, etc. whenever you do a shoot (depending on genres you are shooting)?
5. Is environmental space a limitation in all your shoots (meaning do you have space to walk around)?

Some other considerations:

• How do you normally handle your lenses? Gentle / Normal / Rough? Situational dependent.
• Are you willing to use a used lens?
• Are you willing to use a 3rd party lens?
• Do you feel good and proud showing off a new lens?
• Every lens has its own advantages and disadvantages, can you live with the disadvantages?
• Technology advances through time and each innovation always has something better over the existing, are you willing to wait to see if there is a new model replacing the existing models?

If I see things in my way, I will see no reason why I should not be getting the AF-S VR Zoom Nikkor 70-200mm F2.8G IF-ED. Why? Because you will really appreciate it when you are shooting 1/60, F2.8 and 200mm handheld at 6 pm! Good luck on your considerations.

[viewtiful]

Originally Posted by billone I think you summarised the answer in your question: the optical quality is close (tests show a minor advantage for the 70-200). The main differences are in the focusing speed and VR. The AF-S of the 70-200 motor is fast and allows you to adjust focus manually even when the lens and camera are in autofocus mode. However, it is less robust than the older focusing system (driven by a screw motor in the camera) and prone to the occasional (rare) electronic failure. VR stands for vibration reduction. It is excellent. However, there have been reports of its being damaged if the lens is unmounted from the camera while the camera is switched on. Once again: less robust than the 80-200. You choose: more high-tech, or more robust. The two are pretty much the same in terms of optical quality.

hmmm... sort of the enlighten me... the key words... robust and high tech.. i just dun wanna regret buying it.... although the company is paying it... still im taking care of the equipments...

[viewtiful]

Originally Posted by Zeckson Chow I am not going to touch on this topic comparing specs by specs of both lenses. Both lenses are great. Let's look at things at a higher level. If you are the photographer of your company, ask yourself these questions: Is your company willing to pay the higher price of the lens after you have given the comparison analysis? Are you going to complain on the additional weight of one lens over the other (one of them is heavier)? What are the situations that you think you will be doing with the new lenses? Sports? Portraits? etc. Do you have a crew with you to carry all the tripods, reflectors, backdrop papers or boards, light strobes, batteries, etc. whenever you do a shoot (depending on genres you are shooting)? Is environmental space a limitation in all your shoots (meaning do you have space to walk around)? Some other considerations: How do you normally handle your lenses? Gentle / Normal / Rough? Situational dependent. Are you willing to use a used lens? Are you willing to use a 3rd party lens? Do you feel good and proud showing off a new lens? Every lens has its own advantages and disadvantages, can you live with the disadvantages? Technology advances through time and each innovation always has something better over the existing, are you willing to wait to see if there is a new model replacing the existing models? If I see things in my way, I will see no reason why I should not be getting the AF-S VR Zoom Nikkor 70-200mm F2.8G IF-ED. Why? Because you will really appreciate it when you are shooting 1/60, F2.8 and 200mm handheld at 6 pm! Good luck on your considerati ons.

thks for taking your time in answering my doubt. anyway im a 1 man gang and is used to running ard like a mad dog for all events..crazy events. weight wise im used to it and its not a problem.anyway im using the lens for sport and showing off? nah im not the kind of person. lol.
frankly speaking i can be a very rough handler and technology wise i understand that part. true enough i kept thinking whether i really NEED a VR lens and ho much different would it make. actually i sort of make up my mind in the beginning opting for a Non VR one.... i just dun wanna sort of make the wrg decision and regret it even if the company is spending the money. btw, about the handling part,r u telling me that the non VR is more suitable for rough handling?

[Tetrode]

Originally Posted by viewtiful thks for taking your time in answering my doubt. anyway im a 1 man gang and is used to running ard like a mad dog for all events..crazy events. weight wise im used to it and its not a problem.anyway im using the lens for sport and showing off? nah im not the kind of person. lol. frankly speaking i can be a very rough handler and technology wise i understand that part. true enough i kept thinking whether i really NEED a VR lens and ho much different would it make. actually i sort of make up my mind in the beginning opting for a Non VR one.... i just dun wanna sort of make the wrg decision and regret it even if the company is spending the money. btw, about the handling part,r u telling me that the non VR is more suitable for rough handling?

What kind of events will you be shooting?
Will you need to override AF a lot?

[renegade150]

80-200 is a good lens..u won't go wrong with it.

[Zeckson Chow]

Originally Posted by viewtiful thks for taking your time in answering my doubt. anyway im a 1 man gang and is used to running ard like a mad dog for all events..crazy events. weight wise im used to it and its not a problem.anyway im using the lens for sport and showing off? nah im not the kind of person. lol. frankly speaking i can be a very rough handler and technology wise i understand that part. true enough i kept thinking whether i really NEED a VR lens and ho much different would it make. actually i sort of make up my mind in the beginning opting for a Non VR one.... i just dun wanna sort of make the wrg decision and regret it even if the company is spending the money. btw, about the handling part,r u telling me that the non VR is more suitable for rough handling?

No. Any lens will not stand taking rough handling, be it VR or non VR. If you are doing sports only, do have other considerations for:

• AF-S VR 300mm F2.8G IF-ED
• AF-S VR 200mm F2G IF-ED
• AF-S 400mm F2.8D IF-ED II

The above are great sports lenses. Of course, it comes with a price lah. Not sure if it is in the Singapore market or not.

[viewtiful]

Originally Posted by Zeckson Chow No. Any lens will not stand taking rough handling, be it VR or non VR. If you are doing sports only, do have other considerations for: AF-S VR 300mm F2.8G IF-ED AF-S VR 200mm F2G IF-ED AF-S 400mm F2.8D IF-ED II The above are great sports lenses. Of course, it comes with a price lah. Not sure if it is in the Singapore market or not.

i understand but of cos not that rough till i threw the lens ard. anyway i knw hw fragile it is cos once my frd knocked the 18-200 vr lens against the wall... the rest is history.... anyway the fixed lens think its way off the budget.....

[tltan]

both are good lens. optically, both are good but 70-200 is supposedly more susceptible to flare (this is really minor nitpicking).

I own the cheaper version due to cost concern and that I dont have a company supporting me. if the company is paying, get the best that you can. VR will help alot as well as the additional 10mm wider. Unless you are buying it for personal usage, then you got to calculate the cost-vs-features issues.

Regards,
tltan

[viewtiful]

Originally Posted by tltan both are good lens. optically, both are good but 70-200 is supposedly more susceptible to flare (this is really minor nitpicking). I own the cheaper version due to cost concern and that I dont have a company supporting me. if the company is paying, get the best that you can. VR will help alot as well as the additional 10mm wider. Unless you are buying it for personal usage, then you got to calculate the cost-vs-features issues. Regards, tltan

true enough.

[viewtiful]

anyway 1 more dumb question.... im currently using a D80 and will the lens be faster enough on the camera?
anyway also considering alternative which is the sigma 70-200mm. lol sorry more question

[kcuf2]

Originally Posted by viewtiful anyway 1 more dumb question.... im currently using a D80 and will the lens be faster enough on the camera? anyway also considering alternative which is the sigma 70-200mm. lol sorry more question

eh...AFS lens are already the fastest already... so if u are using D80, its already the fastest for ur D80. its definitely faster than the AF-D 80-200.

for sigma, then i cant confirm which is faster, i never done test of sigma hsm vs nikon afs before..

[viewtiful]

Originally Posted by kcuf2 eh...AFS lens are already the fastest already... so if u are using D80, its already the fastest for ur D80. its definitely faster than the AF-D 80-200. for sigma, then i cant confirm which is faster, i never done test of sigma hsm vs nikon afs before..

the af-s no longer in production... replaced by the vr lens.