70-200 vr 1 or 80-200?


Oct 1, 2011
1,799
0
0
Planet Earth
#1
Hi all I am contemplating on getting either lenses. I've read numerous reviews about both lenses but I want the opinions of the users in CS.

First off I'm using a crop sensor (D7000) and I intend to use this lens as a multipurpose indoor shooting/sports/birding lens. Mostly indoor though :p

From what I can gather, both lenses are of excellent optical quality, some say on par with each other, some say the 80-200 is better. The price difference is about 1k and I am wondering, is AF-S and VR worth this price?

On a side note, I am aware of the many different versions of the AFD 80-200 however after searching high and low, I can only tell the difference between the two touch versions and push-pull version. Anyone can enlighten me on this?
 

TonyOng

New Member
Apr 6, 2009
341
0
0
SK
www.facebook.com
#2
actually i am also quite confused about the two-touch and push-pull.. two-touch = push pull or two touch is the one that is like most lenses now?
 

yuuki

New Member
Jul 13, 2009
59
0
0
Pioneer
#3
I have used both the 70-200vr1 and 80-200 (two-touch version).
Two touch refers to the two-ring design (one for manual focusing and one for zooming). It's the design that most lenses currently use.
  • Up to 180mm, the optical quality is almost the same, at 100% magnification, i would say the 70-200 vr1 is slightly better.
  • At 200mm, it's a whole different story though. 80-200 is soft at 200mm while the 70-200vr1 is still sharp.
  • At longer focal length near minimum focusing distance, the 80-200 tends to backfocuses a little. It's not very noticeable in real world use though.
  • The 70-200 vr1 has less purple fringing.
  • Some prefer the build quality of the 80-200. It feels more solid than the 70-200 vr1.


The 70-200 vr1 is a better lens overall, but it's not $1000 better.
If you need the VR, go with the VR1. Otherwise, both lenses are good.
 

fmeeran

New Member
Nov 5, 2010
834
0
0
Clementi, Singapore
#4
On a side note. 200mm is not enough for birding. You'll need at least 300mm + and preferably around 500mm.
 

SneakerX

New Member
Oct 5, 2010
285
0
0
www.flickr.com
#5
VR helps a lot, the purple fringing on the 80-200 is just to much for me, sold it and now i got the 70-200
get the two touch version, the one touch is horrible on the focusing. its just too noisy like a tamron and its very slow. although optically, they got the same design so performance is also the same.
 

daredevil123

Moderator
Staff member
Oct 25, 2005
21,652
66
48
lil red dot
#6
IQ of the AF-S 80-200 is the best among the 80-200 versions...

But between the VR1, push pull and 2 touch AF-D versions, you are better off with the VR1.

Of course, if you can afford it, go for the VR2 and never look back.
 

Oct 1, 2011
1,799
0
0
Planet Earth
#7
yuuki said:
I have used both the 70-200vr1 and 80-200 (two-touch version).
Two touch refers to the two-ring design (one for manual focusing and one for zooming). It's the design that most lenses currently use.

[*]Up to 180mm, the optical quality is almost the same, at 100% magnification, i would say the 70-200 vr1 is slightly better.
[*]At 200mm, it's a whole different story though. 80-200 is soft at 200mm while the 70-200vr1 is still sharp.
[*]At longer focal length near minimum focusing distance, the 80-200 tends to backfocuses a little. It's not very noticeable in real world use though.
[*]The 70-200 vr1 has less purple fringing.
[*]Some prefer the build quality of the 80-200. It feels more solid than the 70-200 vr1.


The 70-200 vr1 is a better lens overall, but it's not $1000 better.
If you need the VR, go with the VR1. Otherwise, both lenses are good.
I See. Thanks alot for the breakdown on the lenses :)

fmeeran said:
On a side note. 200mm is not enough for birding. You'll need at least 300mm + and preferably around 500mm.
I'm actually using a crop sensor do this should give me about 300mm equivalent already. Plus I can crop quite alot on my camera

SneakerX said:
VR helps a lot, the purple fringing on the 80-200 is just to much for me, sold it and now i got the 70-200
get the two touch version, the one touch is horrible on the focusing. its just too noisy like a tamron and its very slow. although optically, they got the same design so performance is also the same.
My sentiments exactly bro(about the VR)

daredevil123 said:
IQ of the AF-S 80-200 is the best among the 80-200 versions...

But between the VR1, push pull and 2 touch AF-D versions, you are better off with the VR1.

Of course, if you can afford it, go for the VR2 and never look back.
Oh but what is the main difference between vr1 and vr2 besides the VR versions?
 

#8
Oh but what is the main difference between vr1 and vr2 besides the VR versions?
VR1 is optimized for DX and you ll have fantastic image quality there, but will lose out in the corners on FX. VRii is better in the corners.
the 80-200 AF-S pretty much matches the 70-200s for image quality, though it flares easily. AF speed is also really really fast. should consider that as well
 

Oct 1, 2011
1,799
0
0
Planet Earth
#9
Ben Ang said:
VR1 is optimized for DX and you ll have fantastic image quality there, but will lose out in the corners on FX. VRii is better in the corners.
the 80-200 AF-S pretty much matches the 70-200s for image quality, though it flares easily. AF speed is also really really fast. should consider that as well
Do you think either Is a viable upgrade from the sigma 70-200 hsm ii?
 

daredevil123

Moderator
Staff member
Oct 25, 2005
21,652
66
48
lil red dot
#10
Oh but what is the main difference between vr1 and vr2 besides the VR versions?
VR1 is optimized for DX and you ll have fantastic image quality there, but will lose out in the corners on FX. VRii is better in the corners.
the 80-200 AF-S pretty much matches the 70-200s for image quality, though it flares easily. AF speed is also really really fast. should consider that as well
On top of what Ben has mentioned, the vr2 is much sharper than the vr1 or the 80-200 AFS. And the VR is now 4 stops (tested by lenstip.com to 3.7 stops in actual use), compared to the 3 stop from the VR1. But this improvements is at the cost of a little more focus breathing.
 

Last edited:

daredevil123

Moderator
Staff member
Oct 25, 2005
21,652
66
48
lil red dot
#11
Do you think either Is a viable upgrade from the sigma 70-200 hsm ii?
Any of your mentioned choices is a viable upgrade from the sigma hsm... Unless if you are talking about the sigma 70-200 OS, the OS version performs around the level of the VR1, but without the focus limiter.
 

Oct 1, 2011
1,799
0
0
Planet Earth
#12
I see. Thanks all for your kind comments. All my questions (so far) have been answered. I'll leave this thread open in case anyone wants to add on.
 

#14
On top of what Ben has mentioned, the vr2 is much sharper than the vr1 or the 80-200 AFS. And the VR is now 4 stops (tested by lenstip.com to 3.7 stops in actual use), compared to the 3 stop from the VR1. But this improvements is at the cost of a little more focus breathing.
i think photozone tested the VR1 to be sharper in the center than the vr2 wide open, but the vr2 won for across-the-frame image quality. i've not ocmpared the AF-S to the vr2, but there was certainly nothing more i could want from exp perhaps flare resistance. its huge though

Just wondering, is all if the above lenses weather sealed?
the vr1 and vr2 are weather sealed; i ve opened the AF-S 80-200, and the electronics are well isolated so im sure that one would be fine too.
 

Jiannn L

New Member
Jan 19, 2011
80
0
0
#15
Recently I bought a 70-200mm f/2.8 VR2 and it's awesome! You should really consider for VR2 and I'm using a D7000 also. :)
 

Oct 1, 2011
1,799
0
0
Planet Earth
#16
Jiannn L said:
Recently I bought a 70-200mm f/2.8 VR2 and it's awesome! You should really consider for VR2 and I'm using a D7000 also. :)
Haha. Poor student like me CNt afford. I think I'll settle for 80-200 now xD
 

Dec 22, 2009
105
0
16
Pasir Ris
#17
Hi brother jiannn L, do you find this tight for cropped body. Thinking of getting this but always this too tight for family shoots. I have the 70-300 & always find it too tight for outings. My 70-300 is the least use lens so far as it is too tight for most occasions except for zoo etc. still undecided to get this 70-200. Thanks.
 

Oct 1, 2011
1,799
0
0
Planet Earth
#18
gnesgnoy said:
Hi brother jiannn L, do you find this tight for cropped body. Thinking of getting this but always this too tight for family shoots. I have the 70-300 & always find it too tight for outings. My 70-300 is the least use lens so far as it is too tight for most occasions except for zoo etc. still undecided to get this 70-200. Thanks.
Since you don't use the 70-300, why get 70-200? You're just buying a more expensive, heavier and larger lens.
 

daredevil123

Moderator
Staff member
Oct 25, 2005
21,652
66
48
lil red dot
#19
i think photozone tested the VR1 to be sharper in the center than the vr2 wide open, but the vr2 won for across-the-frame image quality. i've not ocmpared the AF-S to the vr2, but there was certainly nothing more i could want from exp perhaps flare resistance. its huge though
At 200mm wide open the vr2 is sharper all around. ;)
 

buzzmario

New Member
Mar 12, 2011
256
0
0
46
#20
Since you don't use the 70-300, why get 70-200? You're just buying a more expensive, heavier and larger lens.
as i read about lens, it seem tha 70-200 is more expensive than 70-300? what is this so? function wise,300 give more zooming le.
 

Top Bottom