AFD 80-200 f/2.8 or AFS VR 70-300 f/4.5-5.6?

[Genie In A Lightbox]

I need some advise from you for the above mentioned lens.

May I know which of these two lenses would be a better buy? I am considering pairing them up with a FX camera.

I hope brothers and sisters here can give me advice based on your experience with these lens. In terms of shooting while handholding, which is a better choice? Is the 80-200 worth the additional few hundreds?

Thanks in advance!

[Leong23]

From the two choices....
I will go for the 80-200f/2.8

[vonlichenstein]

Originally Posted by Genie In A Lightbox I need some advise from you for the above mentioned lens. May I know which of these two lenses would be a better buy? I am considering pairing them up with a FX camera. I hope brothers and sisters here can give me advice based on your experience with these lens. In terms of shooting while handholding, which is a better choice? Is the 80-200 worth the additional few hundreds? Thanks in advance!

do you need the f2.8? or do you need the extra 100mm? do you need the VR? how far away are the subjects you're shooting? are you willing to carry the heavier 80-200mm f2.8 around?

[Override2Zion]

Originally Posted by Genie In A Lightbox I need some advise from you for the above mentioned lens. May I know which of these two lenses would be a better buy? I am considering pairing them up with a FX camera. I hope brothers and sisters here can give me advice based on your experience with these lens. In terms of shooting while handholding, which is a better choice? Is the 80-200 worth the additional few hundreds? Thanks in advance!

Yes definitely worth the additional few hundreds, thats the price to pay for a larger constant aperture. The AF-D 80-200mm f/2.8 has a problem of front/back focusing, but if you're thinking of pairing it up with the D700/D3 then no worries since it allows AF fine tune for individual lenses. The AF-D 80-200mm is heavier though, so the choice is up to you

[doom102938]

70-300mm f4.5-5.6 VR
Pros
1) For handheld shooting with a telephoto. VR is quite important.
2) Low price compared to the 80-200mm f2.8
3) Decent IQ for its price
4) Versatile range (70-300mm)
Cons
1) For its price, I dont think there is much to complain about.

80-200mm F2.8
Pros
1) Large aperture
2) Better optics?(have not tried this before)
3) More professional looking lol
Cons
1) Weight
2) Price
3) Lack of VR

That is based on what i know. So if there is any mistakes dont flame me haha.
Basically you cannot go wrong with either lens, its more of what are you going to use the lens for. For birding, the 70-300mm VR would be a better choice. For sports, the 80-200mm would be a better choice.
Personally i would choose the 70-300mm VR. Mainly because of the price, weight and VR. It makes a very good telephoto lens for travel.
If you really have alot of money, try following this."When in doubt, buy all"

[vonlichenstein]

Originally Posted by doom102938 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 VR Pros 1) For handheld shooting with a telephoto. VR is quite important. 2) Low price compared to the 80-200mm f2.8 3) Decent IQ for its price 4) Versatile range (70-300mm) Cons 1) For its price, I dont think there is much to complain about. 80-200mm F2.8 Pros 1) Large aperture 2) Better optics?(have not tried this before) 3) More professional looking lol Cons 1) Weight 2) Price 3) Lack of VR That is based on what i know. So if there is any mistakes dont flame me haha. Basically you cannot go wrong with either lens, its more of what are you going to use the lens for. For birding, the 70-300mm VR would be a better choice. For sports, the 80-200mm would be a better choice. Personally i would choose the 70-300mm VR. Mainly because of the price, weight and VR. It makes a very good telephoto lens for travel. If you really have alot of money, try following this."When in doubt, buy all"

lol! do you work for nikon?

Do bear in mind, TS, that VR won't stop moving subjects, but a larger apeture will (in challenging lighting conditions), so it really depends on what you're shooting. btw, a second hand 80-200 f2.8 will cost you about $1k, a first hand one, $1650. so if you do go for an 80-200, get it second hand

[giantcanopy]

Hello Genie, you can try to rent / borrow an 80-200 to try shooting with ur FX body locally and see if the weight is alright to handle. The body would be heavy, and the 80-200 is heavy as well.

The other forumers have given their input on the differences between the two lenses. The current ( Nikon ) FX bodies are pretty swell in higher ISOs and I believe shooting fast subjects with the 70-300mm VR is even easier than before even if you do not have a wide aperture.

Ryan

[vonlichenstein]

Originally Posted by giantcanopy Hello Genie, you can try to rent / borrow an 80-200 to try shooting with ur FX body locally and see if the weight is alright to handle. The body would be heavy, and the 80-200 is heavy as well. The other forumers have given their input on the differences between the two lenses. The current ( Nikon ) FX bodies are pretty swell in higher ISOs and I believe shooting fast subjects with the 70-300mm VR is even easier than before even if you do not have a wide aperture. Ryan

oh yeah, i forgot he's using a FX body (lucky bugger).

[Genie In A Lightbox]

Does any CSers has anything to comment on the performance of 80-200 AFD on FX body? How is the corner to corner sharpness?

[lsisaxon]

Originally Posted by Genie In A Lightbox Does any CSers has anything to comment on the performance of 80-200 AFD on FX body? How is the corner to corner sharpness?

I tested the 80-200/2.8 one touch and I think the corners are quite acceptable.

[gymak90]

I think the 70-300 VR is worth it's price. For extra reach and basically for shooting in bright areas.

As for the 80-200, I heard some say you buy that because you can't afford the VR in 70-200. Other than that, the performance is the roughly the same. 10mm isn't really a big difference anyway.
I would get a 2nd hand 80-200 for that f2.8. Think about the bokeh and low-light shooting it can do

[Genie In A Lightbox]

Originally Posted by lsisaxon I tested the 80-200/2.8 one touch and I think the corners are quite acceptable.

Thanks Isisaxon! You always seem to have answers to my queries! lol

I'm considering to add a constant aperture telephoto zoom to my collection. The AFD 80-200 f/2.8 is already very good enough for my needs.

Originally Posted by gymak90 I think the 70-300 VR is worth it's price. For extra reach and basically for shooting in bright areas. As for the 80-200, I heard some say you buy that because you can't afford the VR in 70-200. Other than that, the performance is the roughly the same. 10mm isn't really a big difference anyway. I would get a 2nd hand 80-200 for that f2.8. Think about the bokeh and low-light shooting it can do

I feel the same way as you do except that the 2nd hand ones are selling at almost the price of a new one without warranty. In some cases, I suspect there are some who tries to sell a 3rd or 4th hand lens at 2nd hand prices.

[lsisaxon]

Originally Posted by Genie In A Lightbox Thanks Isisaxon! You always seem to have answers to my queries! lol

Happen to have the lens.

[gymak90]

Originally Posted by Genie In A Lightbox I feel the same way as you do except that the 2nd hand ones are selling at almost the price of a new one without warranty. In some cases, I suspect there are some who tries to sell a 3rd or 4th hand lens at 2nd hand prices.

My personal opinion: Be it 80-200 or 70-200 or 70-300 or whatever expensive lens... If you find the price in the resale market is close to the price of a new one. Then get the new one.
How close is close? Probably about a couple of hundred dollars difference.
Do some math, e.g. a new 70-200 costs $2800, and 2nd hand best price: $2200. Difference=$800. Proportion of $800 to actual price = 800/2200 X 100% = 36.3%

Think about it. If you pay so much a 2nd hand lens, most probably without warranty, comes with user marks etc. What happens if your lens spoils? The $800 protects you for 1year on that costly lens. I believe it is more worthwhile.

[Rurouni]

If you don't shoot at tele ranges often, then the cheaper 75-300VR may be a better bet, something to keep in mind. One does tend to get overly excited after doing some 'window shopping' online

[KennyDalglish]

I Think The 70-300 Is Better But The Problem Is that 70-300 not good in low light so it depends on what u are shooting

[Genie In A Lightbox]

Originally Posted by KennyDalglish I Think The 70-300 Is Better But The Problem Is that 70-300 not good in low light so it depends on what u are shooting

Hi kenny

Thanks for the input. I've made my decision already.

I bought the AF-D 80-200 f/2.8. This lens rox!

[tltan]

Originally Posted by Genie In A Lightbox Hi kenny Thanks for the input. I've made my decision already. I bought the AF-D 80-200 f/2.8. This lens rox!

yeah, it rocks. And its built so well. =) Except at the M/A ring.
I like it as i love lenses with aperture rings, really differentiates from C camp =p
However,this lens have back focusing at nearest focusing distance at 180-200mm. Hope the full frame solve this problem

[Genie In A Lightbox]

Originally Posted by tltan yeah, it rocks. And its built so well. =) Except at the M/A ring. I like it as i love lenses with aperture rings, really differentiates from C camp =p However,this lens have back focusing at nearest focusing distance at 180-200mm. Hope the full frame solve this problem

I never experience any backfocusing problem with my D700 throughout the entire focal length when using AF. Maybe backfocusing is a sampling issue.

Normally I shoot using manual focus for all my lenses.

[tltan]

Originally Posted by Genie In A Lightbox I never experience any backfocusing problem with my D700 throughout the entire focal length when using AF. Maybe backfocusing is a sampling issue. Normally I shoot using manual focus for all my lenses.

I think manual focusing solves part of the problem. Try shooting at closest focusing distance at f2.8. do a lil pixel peep.

Anyway, i heard the problem is non existant in fX or film lenses. So probably thats why.