:think: :think: You really think this comparison is only limited to such? Hmmmm....wildstallion said:another question you have to ask is do you have 3k to spend on a lens you can get for 1.6k for similar image quality but slightly slower (if forget about VR)
espn said::think: :think: You really think this comparison is only limited to such? Hmmmm....
Ah... got other stuffs to consider? How come you only mentioned slightly faster speed + similar image quality for both? Care to share?wildstallion said:no, need to take into consideration other stuff aswell just thats all the threadstater asked about, if i had the money would be 70-200 hands down no arguement, killer lens!
espn said:Ah... got other stuffs to consider? How come you only mentioned slightly faster speed + similar image quality for both? Care to share?
Hmmm... so to avoid handshake, get a lousier looking exterior, shorter body length and louder AF like the 80-200 is better than the 70-200VR. Ok ok.. thanks...wildstallion said:sure, will do, the 70-200 is slightly heavier than the 80-200 and if forgetting about VR means increase in camera shake at a slower shutter, also depends on needs of the photographer, if going to be shooting in bright daylight all the time th 80-200 would probably do a very good job for a much lower price. Also the 70-200 cosmetically looks better if the photographer concerned about looks. Also if going to be used in say shooting a concert then the 70-200 has the silent wave moter which will keep focusing noise very quite, the 80-200 will be slightly louder, if iam not mistaken. The 70-200 is also longer than the 80-200 so if photographer needs to use for trips, or to fit in current bag to save upgrading may choose the smaller lens.
Also can use the 70-200 with the new 1.7 AF-S Teleconvertor, if the photographer needs to increase focal length, e.g. the zoo
espn said:Hmmm... so to avoid handshake, get a lousier looking exterior, shorter body length and louder AF like the 80-200 is better than the 70-200VR. Ok ok.. thanks...
SWM is not only focusing speed nor quietly increase over non-SWMs, but also tracking speed involved when doing continous focusing. Single AF normally doesn't seem to make SWM look fast. However, try tracking + continous focusing, the SWM will kick butt more than non-SWMs. On pro bodies, SWM simply just kicks ass.simon80 said:d70 + AFs
d200 + AFd
so which one will be faster?
Pls ignore if i ask a dumb q. :bsmilie:
Good one. I love my bazooka a.k.a. AF-S 80-200 f2.8 :bsmilie:sykestang said:For those who are interested in getting the AFS70-200VR, check out my offer here: http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=172053
I used to own the AFD80-200 and the AFS80-200. Also have borrowed the 70-200VR on many occasions. Here is my personal comments:
AFD80-200:
- Better flare control compared to both the AFS version. The HB-7 Hood is not necessary. In fact there is a rare metal screw-on hood for this lens as well, the HN-28.
- Sharp but slight CA.
- One must learn to hold the lens in correct holding position, else shoot min 1/200 for photos without hand shake. Unless mounted with monopod/tripod as support.
AFS80-200:
- Flare control lose out to the AFD version. Recommend to use the big flower hood at all times.
- very Sharp image, better contrast and color compared the AFD version.
- One must learn to hold the lens in correct position, else shoot min 1/200 for photos without hand shake. In fact the AFS80-200 is the most heavy among the 3 lens. Monopod/Tripod is recommended.
AFS70-200VR:
- Flare control lose out to the AFD version. Recommend to use the big flower hood at all times.
- very Sharp image, better contrast and color compared the AFD version. Similar to the AFS80-200
- With VR on, I can get good sharp pictures with shutter speed 1/30!!! :bigeyes: This is a must lens for indoor concert or church wedding at low light. The weight of this lens is in between the AFD80-200 and AFS80-200. However I don't quite like the length as it is the longest among the 3 lens.
Hope this summarised what you guys are looking for. However, I am no expert in testing lenses, the above are just my findings after owning and using them.
espn said:I won't go too much into flare as it can be avoided easily and/or it has never happened to me in my usage of the AF-D/S 70/80-200 /VR. In short flare is nothing to worry about.
I love it too... ;p Still missed the crinkle finish.TMC said:Good one. I love my bazooka a.k.a. AF-S 80-200 f2.8 :bsmilie: