80-200 AF-D vs 70-200 VR1 vs VR2


Sep 30, 2010
82
0
0
#1
Hi everyone, I'm currently deciding between these 3 lens and am seeking input on what you think about them

Current Equip
D90 and 18-105 kit lens
While 18-105 is a convenient range I feel the bokeh is not very satisfactory. Sharpness indoors is soso only. D90 acceptable ISO seems to be around ISO800 only, and shutterspeed can only be so slow for handhold. I hope that one of these 3 lenses can fit these shortcomings. My intention is decide upon and invest in 1 good lens that might cost more, but will see high usage, rather than to buy several lenses with divided usage.

I wont be buying FX (or better DX body) for a long time, due to many reasons.

Intended Usage
  • Photojournalistic style/candid (this rules out primes and MF)
  • Portraiture-type
  • General Events/Street
  • Very often will not have the option of using flash or tripod

Preferences
  • Don't really care about vignetting and corner sharpness (in fact this can be nice sometimes)
  • Don't really care about nano crystal, ghosts or flare
  • No interest in landscape or teleconverters

Factors
  • 80-200 has no VR, and very often I will be unable to use flash
  • 80-200 is not bayonet hood
  • Reading many online comments about VR1 vs VR2, can see some consensus that VR2 is meant to improve vignetting and corner sharpness on FX
  • However, the main question is the IQ and sharpness on the subject itself?
  • Have rented the VR1 before and was quite happy, but not sure about whether the VR2 can be even better based on my needs?
  • Have seen kkrevolution's thread on VR1 vs VR2 and considered what is said in it, but perhaps my needs is more limited?

Thanks for listening. Also, does anyone have recommendation for what filter to use for this range of lenses? (77mm)
 

Last edited:

tltan

Senior Member
Apr 18, 2005
2,484
0
0
www.flickr.com
#2
if you have the money, go for the VR2. Otherwise, go for the VR1.

the 80-200 have high quality optics as well. but handholding it seems to be not as comfortable compared to the 70-200 (due to ergonomics since the 70-200 weighs slightly more). For the 80-200, you really need to be very still or handshake will occur. However, due to the weight of the setup with 80-200 and my D300 with grip, it actually gives good hand holding (1/160) or so for 200mm.
 

K S Kong

Senior Member
Dec 11, 2007
762
1
18
www.flickr.com
#3
Sorry, I do not understand, if you Don't really care about vignetting and corner sharpness, Don't really care about nano crystal, way are you looking at this 3 lenses?
 

wmayeo

New Member
Feb 11, 2008
1,571
0
0
Singapore
#4
With VR you have the advantage to shoot at lower shutter 'handheld'!! I've tried the 70-200 VR before, it's much faster in auto focusing. But I used the 80-200(2-touch) for events, normally need to shoot at wide open & high shutter like 1/160s (& above) to freeze action. For me, I always held my breath more tightly when using the 80-200 to shoot. While on 70-200 VR, i can be more relaxed/comfortable shooting with it.

For the choice between 70-200 VR or VRII, since you don't really care about flaring/ghosting issue onto your photos, you could get the first edition.
 

eblim

New Member
Aug 4, 2008
60
0
0
72
#5
Hi Rubber
Have you considered the new 28-300 VR? I jusy bought one over Christmas and it is a good all purpose lens.

If you are still debating beytween the 80-200 or 70 - 200 all I can say is that I have had the 80-200 F 2.8 AFD since 1998 and it is an excellent lens.
I used it on my old film cameras F90x, FM2, F5 and D 70s and now on my D 700. If you hold it properly VR is not needed, hell there was no VR back in the 90s.
With the D 700 I just up the ISO if I need to and then I can shoot at a higher speed.
You would be quite happy with the 80-200AFD
Eb
 

r0n1n

Senior Member
Mar 9, 2009
811
2
18
Wild Wild West
#6
they said that for DX, VR1 (70-200) will suffice. VRII is for FX. i also wonder why? anyone care to explain? :dunno:

i have the 80-200 and the IQ is at par with the newer 70-200. but zooming to 150-200mm, my hands needs to be stable to avoid shake. of course, it's the cheapest among the 3.

since you're using D90, imho these 3 lenses might not balance well with your camera body so i suggest getting a batt grip if you dont have one

these lenses are expensive so i would recommend hoya HD for better protection.

hth :)
 

blurboiboi

Senior Member
Jan 8, 2003
6,249
0
36
38
Loyang
blurboiboi.instantlogic.com
#7
they said that for DX, VR1 (70-200) will suffice. VRII is for FX. i also wonder why? anyone care to explain? :dunno:

i have the 80-200 and the IQ is at par with the newer 70-200. but zooming to 150-200mm, my hands needs to be stable to avoid shake. of course, it's the cheapest among the 3.

since you're using D90, imho these 3 lenses might not balance well with your camera body so i suggest getting a batt grip if you dont have one

these lenses are expensive so i would recommend hoya HD for better protection.

hth :)
corner sharpness is not as good thats what i read...
i heard the vrii effective range is between 60-160 when shot close up... wonder is this so for the vri....
 

silvergetz

Deregistered
Jun 7, 2005
527
0
0
zeonicphoto.multiply.com
#8
Simple, get a used 80-200 for 1k, spend the rest on a 35f1.8D, 50f1.8D, 85f1.8D

That will roughly take u to 2k, the budget of a vr1.

You will have the flexibility of low lights, sharpness with the primes. 50/85mm for portraits.
In good light, use 80-200. You get the option to travel light too. The 80-200 is very sharp.
Vr will not help to freeze movements from the humans, fast primes do. Since your main interests is in events, PJ style of shooting, a fast prime helps more.

Forget about the vr2 for dx. Unless u have money to burn.

If u insist on buying new, then that's a different story. There are tonnes of the above mentioned lens for sale in b&s.

If only lens, either the vr1 70-200 or 80-200 afd will do just fine.
 

Last edited:

silvergetz

Deregistered
Jun 7, 2005
527
0
0
zeonicphoto.multiply.com
#9
Hi Rubber
Have you considered the new 28-300 VR? I jusy bought one over Christmas and it is a good all purpose lens.

If you are still debating beytween the 80-200 or 70 - 200 all I can say is that I have had the 80-200 F 2.8 AFD since 1998 and it is an excellent lens.
I used it on my old film cameras F90x, FM2, F5 and D 70s and now on my D 700. If you hold it properly VR is not needed, hell there was no VR back in the 90s.
With the D 700 I just up the ISO if I need to and then I can shoot at a higher speed.
You would be quite happy with the 80-200AFD
Eb

Agree. The 80-200 is a gem. Especially with fx's high iso capability, vr is good, but not that critical.
 

jeff7id

Senior Member
Oct 15, 2008
4,863
10
38
#10
80-200 AF-D for best value.
70-200 AF-S VR2 for best performance
70-200 AF-S VR1 is neither here nor there.

80-200 AF-D + monopod is recommended when the sun not showing up.

For me, my choice is either 80-200 AF-D or 70-200 AF-S VR2
 

daredevil123

Moderator
Staff member
Oct 25, 2005
21,657
66
48
lil red dot
#11
Please don't forget the many versions of 80-200. Prices vary greatly among them too.

80-200 AF push pull ver 1.
80-200 AF-D push pull ver 2.
80-200 AF-D two touch.
80-200 AF-S

80-200 AF-S has one of the best IQ, exceeding 70-200vr1 and at par with 70-200vr2. It is a monster that is large and heavy though.

I am using the 80-200 AF-D push pull ver2. IQ is very very good. Price is also very very attractive. Only downside is that there is no tripod collar/mount on the lens.
 

Last edited:

jeff7id

Senior Member
Oct 15, 2008
4,863
10
38
#12
There are many variance of Nikon 70-200:

The discontinued models:

80-200mm f/2.8 AI-s (Push-pull / one touch)
80-200mm f/2.8 AF (Push-pull ver 1 / one touch)
80-200mm f/2.8 AF-D (Push-pull ver 2 / one touch)
80-200mm f/2.8 AF-S (Ring)
70-200mm f/2.8 VR G (Ring)

The available models:

80-200mm f/2.8 AF-D (Ring / two touch)
70-200mm f/2.8 VR II (Ring)

If TS prefer a new set, 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-D (two touch) or 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II is recommended. Otherwise, need to look at the 2nd hand market for the rest.
 

shelomoh

New Member
Mar 17, 2009
846
0
0
#14
To TS,

You already have made some research and analysis. To me, the answer is so straightforward.

You need VR, so that rules out any variants of 80-200.

I don't think you are considering 3rd party like Sigma, ..., ...

So that leaves you with Nikkor 70-200 VR1 or VR2.

You already decided not to go to FX.

On DX, the VR1 is good enough and you tested it yourself. Because of the cropped factor, you will not notice the edge sharpness that is more obvious on FX. And a used VR1 is about 1K less than a new VR2.

I mean, to me, there is only one choice. the 70-200 VR1.
 

Omega23

New Member
Mar 12, 2009
1,074
0
0
#15
All the 80-200 & 70-200 variants are all pro lenses.. and all are very good and capable.. if you can, get the best you can afford..

IQ wise i rate

70-200 VR2 > VR1 > AFS 80-200 > push pull 80-200 AFD & AF version > 2 touch 80-200 AFD
 

ellery

New Member
Jan 29, 2002
1,188
2
0
57
Visit site
#16
This is not a formally tested opinion but a snap one- the IQ of the 70-200 V2 is about 10 to 20% better than the AFS. Colors on the AFS may be slightly better - ie warmer than the V2. The af speed is slightly faster on the V2. Question is how big do you think you need to enlarge to - at 4R the sharpness difference will be hard to see, the color difference can be leveled at post production. Smile I am considering upgrading my AFS for the V2 but the cost is the factor holding me back - hard to justify for minor gains. Your case I think you could live with a 80-200, the VR is not that big a thing know how to hold and use a long lens is.
 

Sep 30, 2010
82
0
0
#18
Thanks for everyone's input, have considered them and decided to get VR1, and quite happy with it's output.

Simple, get a used 80-200 for 1k, spend the rest on a 35f1.8D, 50f1.8D, 85f1.8D

That will roughly take u to 2k, the budget of a vr1.

You will have the flexibility of low lights, sharpness with the primes. 50/85mm for portraits.
In good light, use 80-200. You get the option to travel light too. The 80-200 is very sharp.
Vr will not help to freeze movements from the humans, fast primes do. Since your main interests is in events, PJ style of shooting, a fast prime helps more.

Forget about the vr2 for dx. Unless u have money to burn.

If u insist on buying new, then that's a different story. There are tonnes of the above mentioned lens for sale in b&s.

If only lens, either the vr1 70-200 or 80-200 afd will do just fine.
Hi, that's a good point that VR doesnt help fast shutter speed. However at the current moment thinking of using fewer (maybe 2 only) lens, maybe when I'm more experienced could consider the fast prime

Hi Rubber
Have you considered the new 28-300 VR? I jusy bought one over Christmas and it is a good all purpose lens.

If you are still debating beytween the 80-200 or 70 - 200 all I can say is that I have had the 80-200 F 2.8 AFD since 1998 and it is an excellent lens.
I used it on my old film cameras F90x, FM2, F5 and D 70s and now on my D 700. If you hold it properly VR is not needed, hell there was no VR back in the 90s.
With the D 700 I just up the ISO if I need to and then I can shoot at a higher speed.
You would be quite happy with the 80-200AFD
Eb
Actually did not hear about this lens until now, and it seems to be another good value choice, although I think 300 exceeds my needs

Sorry, I do not understand, if you Don't really care about vignetting and corner sharpness, Don't really care about nano crystal, way are you looking at this 3 lenses?
Was thinking about bokeh, centre sharpness, egronomics, general IQ
 

Oct 20, 2008
571
0
0
East Side
#19
rubberbands said:
Thanks for everyone's input, have considered them and decided to get VR1, and quite happy with it's output.
Hi TS,

I have a mint 70-200mm f2.8 VR1 complete set for sale if u interested.
 

chanjyj

New Member
Apr 8, 2007
1,909
0
0
#20
I bought a 80-200mm (2 touch) eons ago, and have never "upgraded" to the 70-200mm VR 1 or VR 2.

My personal experience was that the 70-200mm VR 1's VR was ineffective, and I could shoot at the same shutter speed on the 80-200mm w/o VR.

With the new 70-200mm VR 2, I have noticed a marked improvement in VR operation. But then again, I usually have no problems with handshake, so put the cash to better use.

All 3 lenses have good enough IQ for me (though the 70-200mm VR 2 has better IQ, the 80-200mm is sufficient). If I were to have unlimited money and have to choose between the 3, I'd look at the VR system and AF-S (not that the 80-200mm is a slouch) instead.
 

Top Bottom