Nikon 80-200 2.8 vs 70-210 at F8

<p>Is there any difference in optical quality between the Nikon 80-200 ED 2.8 and the 70-210 4-5.6 AT F8 and above. As a landscape photographer I'm not really concerned with wide open quality. I've read Ken Rockwell's review but I'd like to hear from others who have made the comparison. I always use a sturdy tripod. I guess what I'm asking is whether I'm wasting money expecting an improvement using the more expensive lens if I don't need the extra speed. My 70-210 seems quite sharp but I find I have to be extremely careful focusing even at infinity. <br>

Thanks,<br>

Hugh<br>

www.yosemitecollection.com</p>

<p>Hugh,<br>

I'm sure there are differences, but I'll say you've managed quite well with that 70-210.<br>

The weight difference could be a factor.<br>

Great gallery.</p>

<p>Hiro<br>

Thanks for the kind words. Not that you can tell on the web, but most of those images were taken with medium format. However, I now have quite a few new images that someday I will add to my galleries. </p>

<p>A few years ago Popular Photography's Herbert Keppler wrote about the difference between pro & consumer lenses. PopPhoto's test results for the 80-200 AF-S and plastic 80-200 f/4.5-5.6D were shown, and at f/8 they performed virtually the same.</p>

<p>So, if you're into shooting on a tripod at smaller apertures there's likely no need to spend more on a lens.</p>

<p>Hugh, you might find the review of these lenses at Photozone helpful:</p>

<p>http://www.photozone.de/</p>

<p>I have the 80-200mm 2.8 (two-ring) and absolutely love it. Even wide open at 2.8, it's a great lens.</p>

<p>I can second the quality of the 80-200 f/2.8, it's a great lens. But at F/8, all lenses start to be equal indeed. My 80-200, it's not 10 times greater than the 10 times cheaper 70-300G I also have (at the same focal length - the 70-300 is quite bad above 200mm). So, it's better, but certainly not dramatically so. A bit of added contrast in an image editor, and it's very close again.</p>

<p>And as far as I've heard, the 70-210 is better than the 70-300G. So, for your intended use, I doubt whether it would be worth your money.</p>

<p>One thing does make the 80-200 better, though, and that's how it feels. It's big and rather heavy, but it feels rock solid and zooming and focussing feel exactly right to me.</p>

<p>if you're going to shoot a 2.8 lens at f/8, why bother with 2.8 in the first place?</p>

<p>That is, apparently, exactly the question.</p>

<p>And the only reason I can think of might be contrast. The 80-200 two-ring is a very contrasty lens. I love the colors. Don't know about the 70-210. The inexpensive 55-200 is pretty close but there's definitely a difference, and of course it's only a DX lens. My experience with older lenses is that they tend to be less contrasty, more muted in color rendition.</p>

 

<p>I went ahead and conducted a real world test comparing my 105 2.8 AFD micro and a 200 ais micro. The lenses/camera were attached to a sturdy tripod. I found that at 105 the prime lens was sharper but at 200 the zoom was maybe sharper. There is a big difference in contrast between the lenses. I think it may make a difference to go with the pro glass even when stopped down. </p>

<p>This is a late addition to an old thread, but I hope it may provide a useful input for anyone considering the purchase of either an 80-200 f2.8D (pull push type) or the 70-210 f4-5.6 (none D). <br>

Having just bought both at extremely attractive prices for use on my D800 (the 70-210 was less than $100), I must report that I am very impressed by both, and that in terms of sharpness there is not a lot between them.<br>

The 80-200 needed a lot of AF tuning (-18 on my camera) whereas the 70-210 seems perfect unadjusted. Both lenses perform incredibly well wide open from centre to edge, the 80-200 becoming razor sharp at f4, and likewise the 70-210 at one stop down. Both are much better that I am able to get, for example, from my 24-85 f3.5-4.5 (non VR). And I have found that both focus at perfectly acceptable speeds for my use as a fashion, portrait and architectural photographer<br>

Will I keep both? I suspect so. The 80-200 is far too heavy, but its a joy to use - so solid - and the ability to work pretty well wide open will provide a real bonus for fashion work. I also prefer its bokeh and colour tone. In contrast the 70-210 is just so portable.<br>

For the record, I have also found Nikon's old 28-85 f3.5-4.5 to be an incredibly sharp performer when closed down a stop or two. I've had mine since 1987 and whilst it's lacking some sparkle when used for general purposes, and it's not great with flare, I often use it for studio work (where I am typically working at f8 or f11) and in this situation throughout its range it really is almost as sharp as my 50mm f1.8. Every eyelash astoundingly clear!<br>

Lesson: I may have been lucky, but some of Nikon's old lenses really do seem to come into their own on the D800. </p>