80-200mm or 70-200mm

<p>I currently use the Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 (2 ring version) primarily for action shots (ice hockey).</p>

<p>Now that used prices of the Nikon 70-200mm VR are dropping due to the new version being released, I was considering this purchase. For those of you using the 70-200mm, is there really that much of a difference between these two in regards to the speed and accuracy of the auto-focus?</p>

<p>Any input and recommendations would be appreciated.</p>

<p>If you have a AF-S version I don't think the upgrade is usefull, your shutterspeeds should be below the value the VR becomes effective. The increase of AF-speed with 70-200 will be big when you have the AF-D version.</p>

<p>Actually, the VR does not interest me, most of my shots are between 1/320 and 1/500. I have the AF-D version, so an upgrade may be beneficial.</p>

<p>Thanks,<br>

Glenn</p>

I never found a useful or practical difference in the two on AF speed shooting sports. I think the 80-200 delivers much nicer images so that's what I use.

 

Rick H.

<p>I wouldn't do it. The 80-200 is a great lens. The 70-200 version supposedly has some "corner issues". One thing is for sure, the trade will take cash out of your pocket. No thanks, I'm keeping my 80-200.</p>

<p>Glenn, do you have any AF issues with your current 80-200mm/f2.8 AF-D, two-touch version, e.g., insufficient AF speed?</p>

<p>I have to agree with Dan. The 80-200MM AFD is such a fine lens. I will never sell mine. First its sharp, and second it has an aperture ring. Its also shorter than the 70-200MM. I don't need VR for my purposes. I'm glad I skipped the first 70-200MM. When funds are available, I might go for the new version, but the 80-200 will not be sold.<br>

Anthony</p>

 

<p>I use the 80-200.<br>

I would only find the VR version useful if I were going to use this lens for landscape. then the 1/15-1/100 zone would be much more useful handheld.</p>

<p>But for what I use it, which is sports, events and casual snaps. I usually want to use 1/100 shutter speeds and faster anyways to stop subject movement, and at about 1/100 I find I can handhold and still get sharp images most of the time.</p>

<p>Glenn, which camera do you use?</p>

<p>Thanks everyone for your responses. Looks as though I will keep what I have, perhaps the grass isn't always greener.</p>

<p>Ilkka...I use a D300.</p>

<p>I have a D300 as well and have a 80-200 AF-D two ring that I bought used a few months back and I just love it. I was thinking of the 70-200 but for the cost, I couldn't swing it. I have continued to think about getting that lens (as you mentioned, now that the first version costs are coming down). My biggest concern was shooting indoors low light and wanting the VR. Last night I shot a Christmas production on stage in a dark auditorium with the 80-200 and got some great shots. Took some work on my part to steady the camera, but pictures looked great. I don't have a direct comparison, but very happy with my 80-200 and it's picture quality.<br>

I think I will save the money and apply to something else (24-70!!). </p>