AF-S VR 70-200mm f/2.8G IF-ED versus AF 80-200mm f/2.8D ED


Status
Not open for further replies.

dakuneko

New Member
Jan 14, 2006
23
0
0
Eunos
dakuneko.deviantart.com
Has anyone used both?
What can you say about the picture quality of each at 200mm f/2.8?

I know the price difference is big but I am saving up now and I'm torn whether to save more for the 70-200mm VR or just take the 80-200mm.

My usage would be for candids and nature photography.
 

zaxh81

Senior Member
Jan 29, 2003
4,338
0
36
Earth
discussed a few time before,why not use the search button above.
You will get a faster response that way.
 

Reno

Senior Member
Jan 22, 2005
2,323
1
38
Land of the Teddy Bear
In terms of speed, 70-200 is faster cos have SWM, + the VR it has the advantage for low lighting shooting compared to the 80-200.

what nature shots you are aftering? if for birding, you might as well get a 300mm F2.8 prime + 1.4 TC or a 400mm prime, best is 500mm prime..!! 200mm is too short for birding...
 

Fuji Olykon

Member
Nov 19, 2004
430
0
16
East, Macpherson
I would suggest go straight for the 70-200VR.

Never regret getting mine. :lovegrin: The VR really helps a lot. :thumbsup:
 

TMC

Senior Member
Sep 4, 2004
6,320
0
0
Beyond Space-Time Continuum
If not going for low light event photography, then the AF 80-200 would be your choice, fast enough for candids. Nature photography might be a bit short changed there, 200mm is below minimum standards. Pick up a AF-S 80-200 if you can find one, more bang for buck.
 

espn

Deregistered
Dec 20, 2002
21,899
0
0
Planet Nikon
Get AF-S 70-200VR :thumbsup:

BBB, MTL, buy first talk later. :thumbsup:
 

enivre

New Member
Nov 7, 2002
1,958
0
0
38
www.ervinelin.com
if you are going to try nature and candid you might do better with the faster focusing and VR which the 70-200 will offer.. but if you are cash strapped then the 80-200 will work great as well... I don't believe there's a significant difference in image quality...

for the difference in price you can invest in a few more pieces of glass which might in fact be better than dumping everything in a zoom which you might not really use very often anyways...

but if money is not an issue (and weight) then go ahead...
 

arttl

New Member
Jul 20, 2004
1,365
0
0
39
Planet PJ
www.flickr.com
Get the AFS 80-200 instead of the AF one. Makes alot of difference to me.

:)
 

roti_prata

New Member
Jul 31, 2005
768
0
0
Bt Batok
arttl said:
Get the AFS 80-200 instead of the AF one. Makes alot of difference to me.

:)
afs means getting 2nd hand while he may not like. im not sure if mounting the afd on a pro body will make it almost as fast the the afs:think:
 

espn

Deregistered
Dec 20, 2002
21,899
0
0
Planet Nikon
The AF-S version confirms track + focuses faster than AF :bsmilie:
 

dakuneko

New Member
Jan 14, 2006
23
0
0
Eunos
dakuneko.deviantart.com
Thanks guys! I think I would save up more and get the 70-200 VR.

Being a n00b in photography really sucks. I thought the 50mm f/1.4 can handle really low-light condition at max aperture (f/1.4 at ISO 200). Turns out that when using Aperture Prio, it still chooses a slow shutter speed like 1/2 or 1/3" even.

If f/1.4 can still need slow shutter speed then the 70-200mm f/2.8 might not be good at low light conditions. Am I right?

Also, I guess a 17-35mm f/2.8 would work best in normal conditions coz with 50mm, I need to really go far back to get the subject and the background. *sigh* :(
 

sykestang

Senior Member
Jan 18, 2003
5,550
0
36
48
studiospace
sykestang.clubsnap.org
Hmmm... it seems that you're still not sure what to buy. :confused:

Give me a call, we can always meet up for a nice coffee. I believe I can set your mind straight.
 

Reno

Senior Member
Jan 22, 2005
2,323
1
38
Land of the Teddy Bear
dakuneko said:
Thanks guys! I think I would save up more and get the 70-200 VR.

Being a n00b in photography really sucks. I thought the 50mm f/1.4 can handle really low-light condition at max aperture (f/1.4 at ISO 200). Turns out that when using Aperture Prio, it still chooses a slow shutter speed like 1/2 or 1/3" even.

If f/1.4 can still need slow shutter speed then the 70-200mm f/2.8 might not be good at low light conditions. Am I right?

Also, I guess a 17-35mm f/2.8 would work best in normal conditions coz with 50mm, I need to really go far back to get the subject and the background. *sigh* :(

pple uses different lenses for different purpose.... both 50mm F1.4 and 17-35mm f2.8 are very good lense. In really low-light condition, you should use bounce flash or diffuse flash...
 

TMC

Senior Member
Sep 4, 2004
6,320
0
0
Beyond Space-Time Continuum
I use what you were thinking of. the 17-35 is useful for events and can be handheld at 1/10s shutter, if taking events Manual mode is the way to go, compensate with a decent ISO, f stop and shutter speed to get your exposure. Just watch your DOF if you want shooting wide open.

f1.4 is not a solve it all solution for low light photography, it helps a lot but you will still either flash and high ISO to get a good exposure. Judging by what you just said, ISO200 @ f1.4 still gets 1/2s, then you can forget about the 70-200, no VR/IS/OS will be able to get you the pic you want, unless you use flash.
 

espn

Deregistered
Dec 20, 2002
21,899
0
0
Planet Nikon
dakuneko said:
Thanks guys! I think I would save up more and get the 70-200 VR.

Being a n00b in photography really sucks. I thought the 50mm f/1.4 can handle really low-light condition at max aperture (f/1.4 at ISO 200). Turns out that when using Aperture Prio, it still chooses a slow shutter speed like 1/2 or 1/3" even.

If f/1.4 can still need slow shutter speed then the 70-200mm f/2.8 might not be good at low light conditions. Am I right?

Also, I guess a 17-35mm f/2.8 would work best in normal conditions coz with 50mm, I need to really go far back to get the subject and the background. *sigh* :(
Why not crank up ISO? Or you don't know how to? :rolleyes:
 

JediForce4ever

Senior Member
Aug 16, 2005
3,157
0
0
Singapore, CanonGraphers.org
dakuneko said:
Thanks guys! I think I would save up more and get the 70-200 VR.

Being a n00b in photography really sucks. I thought the 50mm f/1.4 can handle really low-light condition at max aperture (f/1.4 at ISO 200). Turns out that when using Aperture Prio, it still chooses a slow shutter speed like 1/2 or 1/3" even.

If f/1.4 can still need slow shutter speed then the 70-200mm f/2.8 might not be good at low light conditions. Am I right?

Also, I guess a 17-35mm f/2.8 would work best in normal conditions coz with 50mm, I need to really go far back to get the subject and the background. *sigh* :(
you've gotta use a hotshoe flash....or turn up ISO....IMO, its impossible to shoot at ISO 200 indoors(dark areas), even at f1.4,
 

itsybitsyspidy

New Member
Jul 5, 2004
1,280
0
0
OT abit, sykestang do you also sell the Nikkor 12-24?
 

dakuneko

New Member
Jan 14, 2006
23
0
0
Eunos
dakuneko.deviantart.com
I do not have a SB800 flash but I am thinking also of getting one but it is on the bottom of my list. I guess a decent flash is needed in low-light conditions. I thought I can buy the SB800 last but now it seems I should purchase it next.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.