Nikon 180mm f/2.8D or 70-200 f/2.8 VR II at ~ 180mm

<p>I have an event coming up soon, where I need a medium telephoto lens with a focal length of about 200mm on a D4. Due to the low-light and fast moving subjects (and for artistic reasons) I plan to keep the lens at f/2.8 or maybe f/4</p>

<p>I own the Nikkor 180mm f/2.8D lens and I like it overall, but more at f/5.6 or f/8. It's soft at f/2.8 and doesn't have a special look to it. My Voigtlander APO-Lanthar 180mm f/4 has a special look to it, but f/4 is too slow, and manual focus is not appropriate for this event.</p>

<p>I can rent a Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 VR II lens locally for a reasonable price. For this event, the zoom function will not be useful. In fact, the 70-200 II will just be a 200mm f/2.8 that's much heavier and longer to hold. But will it look better?</p>

<p>I have rented a 70-200 f/2.8 VR I before, and it was just terrible on my D700. The corners were dark and fuzzy, and it never really got sharp either at f/2.8, and the colors just felt flat. I have heard better things about the VR II lens on FX, but has anyone tried it specifically against the 180/2.8 wide open?</p>

<p>What I'd really like to do, image quality wise, is to rent a Nikkor 200mm f/2 VR lens, which I have done before. Both locally and from the on-line rental houses, it's almost $150, and beyond that I find the 200/2 just too long and heavy for me to hold comfortably for a long period of time. The 70-200/2.8 II is three pounds lighter, but it is still a lot heavier than my 180/2.8 and I'd have to pay $40 to rent it, so I only want to do so if it will really improve the image quality over my own lens at f/2.8</p>

<p>Nikon's 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR II is among the very best lenses Nikon has ever made. For $40, I would highly recommend giving it a try. I currently own both VR versions. The newer version 2 is clearly a better lens.</p>

<p>The 70-200 II is considerably better than the 180mm f/2.8D at f/2.8.</p>

<p>That puts me off my long-term thought that I might like a 180mm prime for portability. :-) If anyone has the chance to try out the Sigma 180mm f/2.8 macro, I'll be interested in how it compares (although my lens lust probably only goes as far as the 150mm).</p>

<p>My AF 180 f/2.8 is not soft at all at f/2.8 (and it does have a special look, at least for me)... but either way, fast AF isn't one of its tricks. The 70-200VRII seems to fit all requirements.</p>

<p>The focus speed of the 70-200mm alone should be enough to convince you to rent the lens over your 180mm. Since you'll have both lenses in your possession, feel free to do your own image comparisons.</p>

<p>Tried the 180mm f2.8 and the 80-200mm f2.8D rather than the 70-200mm f2.8.<br>

Technical results are one thing but this has to be balanced up with other factors such as handling, focussing speed and versatility.<br>

Got to admit I'm surprised at your poor experience with both the 180mm and 70-200 at full aperture. I had nothing but impressive results with both.<br>

Normally, irrespective of whatever a lens designer can pull off, a fixed focal length lens will always beat a zoom lens for even illumination, distortion, aberration suppression and sharpness.<br>

The other complicating factor is that the Version II has been designed from the inside-out for Digital photography. And suppression of CA has been taken very seriously indeed.<br>

My gut instinct is to go for the 70-200 Version 2.<br>

Can't see you being disappointed.</p>

<p> </p>

<p><em>Normally, irrespective of whatever a lens designer can pull off, a fixed focal length lens will always beat a zoom lens for even illumination, distortion, aberration suppression and sharpness.</em></p>

<p>If the designers put the same amount of effort into the design of the prime as the zoom and they're designed at the same time with the intention of use with the same sensor then the prime will most likely be better. But the 180mm was designed in late 1980s for 35mm film, and the 70-200II for FX digital in 2008 ... 30 years in time has passed and both designers, manufacturing methods, and the recording medium have changed. Finally since the fast telezoom is a big seller Nikon can afford to put a lot more money into its development.</p>

<p>Personally I'd love to have a 180mm f/2.8 AF-S with revised optics and focus motor. It would in many cases be my preferred choice over the 70-200II because of weight and size. </p>

<p>Since you say: <em>"the zoom function will not be useful. </em>" it is an unusual for events, but it will make it easier for you.</p>

<p>My 180/2.8 Nikkor is sharper and has nicer bokeh than both 70-200 VR I and VR II.<br>

Just test your lens and see for yourself. You need to form your own opinion and do not jump to conclusion.</p>

<p>Since you say: "<em>In fact, the 70-200 II will just be a 200mm f/2.8</em> " perhaps this lens will not give you expected 200 mm and you could possibly only get a 134 mm out of it, due to the focus breathing feature. See if you will get the expected 200mm out of this lens in your event shooting conditions. </p>

<p>Scroll down and read table in section "Handling" in the page linked below:<br>

<a href="http://www.bythom.com/nikkor-70-200-VR-II-lens.htm">http://www.bythom.com/nikkor-70-200-VR-II-lens.htm</a></p>

<p>Due to the focus breathing problem, I am not sure which 70-200 VR lens I neeed to keep. I mostly used them in rooms and closed quarters, and on D300S/D7000 DX cameras, where both lenses perform equally well. The extra focal length for tight head shots with VR I version lens plays important role. Perhaps super pixels resolution of D800 FX could tip the scale in favor for the VR II.</p>

<p>The new 70-200mm f2.8 VR will focus faster, has VR to help if you are handholding (works up to shutter speed 1/500s), has modern lens coatings (including Nikon's state of art Nano,) has modern CAD optical design, and has state of art glass formulation. It's one of Nikon's best lenses, ever. As for "a fixed focal lens will always be better," not always the case. Here we are comparing a lens designed in the 1980s to a state of art lens made c.2010. You honestly believe there haven't been any significant improvements to lenses in the past 20-30 years??? Lenses have changed just as much as cameras have.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>I own the 180/2.8. It's way too soft wide open and can't autofocus to save its life when shooting indoors. I regularly use the 70-200 VRII for things like figure skating, and the 180 is gathering dust at home, not even in the bag any more. The VRII is tack sharp even wide open and autofocuses faster than anything else I've tried (including the Nikon 80-200 2.8, the Nikon VRI and the Tamron 70-200 2.8).</p>

<p>Frank - due to the edge performance at 200mm, I'd strongly advise against anyone using the 70-200 VR1 on a full-frame camera (whatever Mr Rockwell may say about the irrelevance of soft corners). As you say, the reviews I've seen suggest little difference between the two 70-200 lenses on a DX sensor - I doubt the D800's pixel count will make a difference, but the image circle required will. I bought an 80-200 AF-D in preference over the 70-200 VR1 for my D700; it's visibly less sharp than the VR2, but only a little (I may revise that opinion when I eventually get a D800) - I'm sure it's inferior to a VR1 on, say, a D7000 as well.<br />

<br />

Kent - quite, I'm sure the 200 f/2 VR2 is detectably better than the 70-200 VR2; I suspect the 200 f/2 VR mk 1 is slightly better, too, since the revision was minor (I have the mk 1, and I'm hanging on to my delusions that it was a worthwhile purchase), but these lenses are of similar vintage. There's no way my 500 f/4 AI-P holds up with my 200 f/2 if I pixel-peep, although it's still pretty good. Some designs are improving - or at least, aiming for a different local contrast/absolute resolution trade-off.<br />

<br />

That said, Craig - can I have your 180mm, if you're not using it? :-)</p>

<p>If you only require 200mm and need a fast f-stop then maybe you should look at renting the 200mm f2. Size and weight will be much greater then your other choices. I have been very happy with my 180mm but I don't use it wide open often. Size and weight are very important criteria for me. You should rent it before hand and test the results for your own needs though.</p>

<p>Carl - Samuel already said that the 200 f/2 was his ideal choice optically, but that it's too pricey and unwieldy for him to keep using. I agree with you - I love (and heavily use) my 200 f/2, my 80-200 was an afterthought and I don't especially want a 70-200 (insert disclaimer about a D800 making the 80-200 a paperweight). But I'm aware that I've still not paid it off, it's spectacularly obtrusive, and it's doing wonders for my (admittedly minimal) biceps. I think this is about acceptable optical compromises in the interests of portability and price. That may put Nikon off releasing a 180mm f/2.8 AF-S any time soon - compromising the 70-200 or 200 f/2 sales would be bad for the bottom line.</p>

<p>I just wanted to thank everyone for your helpful comments --- I really appreciate it!</p>

<p>Unfortunately, my local store didn't have the 70-200/2.8 VR II available to rent this weekend (someone else had already engaged it) but did have a copy of the 70-200/2.8 VR I available. As I mentioned, I was disappointed with this lens in the past, and so didn't rent it. However, it turns out the high ISO performance on the D4 is such that I was able to use my 180/2.8 at f/4, where I like it much better than at f/2.8 However, next time I have the opportunity and need, I will try the 70-200/2.8 VR II thanks to the several knowledgeable endorsements of its image quality wide-open. </p>

<p>I'm not planning to get rid of my f/1.4 and f/1.2 primes anytime soon, but I have been impressed by the latest suite of Nikkor f/2.8 zoom lenses --- I'm thinking of the 14-24/2.8 and 24-70/2.8, which have excellent image quality in addition to terrific handling features.</p>

<p>I also wanted to mention that while I am aware that the 70-200/2.8 VR II has a number of handling advantages (e.g. faster AF, full-time manual AF override, VR, zooming) it turns out that none of them would be relevant for my particular application. The AF speed of the 180/2.8 (especially on a D4) is fast and accurate enough, I was shooting above 1/250 sec, and I didn't need to zoom. In fact, the focus breathing issue sounds like it might not normally be any problem, but last night I had to shoot from a fixed location to subjects that were fairly close, and I really wanted as close to a 200mm focal length as possible. Still, I will definitely give this lens a try sometime!</p>