Nikon 80-200 f2.8 AF-S or 70-200 f2.8 AF-S VR for Weddings?

I have a chance to buy either of these lenses. Image quality seems

to be about the same and the 10mm diffference in focal length range

doesn't concern me. The VR lens is about $500 more than a mint

condition used AF-S lens. I've seen a few posts about the

differences between the lens, but none from "people shooters". I'd

be using it for weddings. My main question: is the VR worth $500

more?

 

So do any of you wedding shooters out there use the VR lens? Does

the VR work as advertised in darker reception hall environments, and

are you getting more usable/sellable shots than you would have had

without the VR feature?

 

I'm fairly good at handholding longer lenses, but not down in the

1/60, 1/30, 1/15 second range, etc.

VR is good *if* the subject is willing to remain without motion at 1/15th or 1/10th of a second of exposure. VR may work better at 1/250th second as everything will be keen -- even if your subject wants to move about a bit.

 

 

 

 

Just a suggestion, a 28-70mm f2.8 or a AF 85mm f1.4 lens may be more useful at a reception than a 80-200mm lens -- VR or non-VR.

Thanks for the above suggestion. Already have a full arsenal of smaller/wider lenses. I use a Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 EX now, just looking to upgrade. This is about the only lens I can reach in and grab initimate/close up shots with, hence the original question.

I am currently trying to cost justify a 70-200/2.8 zoom to get greater flexbility than my 180/2.8. I would much prefer to get the VR. I mostly want it for the ceremony. For indoors I usually don't get exposures at much more than 1/30@2.8. The VR would make these shot hand holdable. Receptions depend on your balance of ambient to flash. If your exposure is mostly flash the VR won't make much difference. If you set your exposure to pick up lots of ambient then the VR will help. If you have the Sigma now, I don't think that the AF-S Nikon is much, if any, of an upgrade.

I never used my 80-200/2.8 AF-S lens much at weddings and events. It is seldom convenient to set up a tripod. The 70-200 VR is another matter altogether. I can get sharp images at 1/15 second, hand-held, if the subject is reasonably still. I have fairly steady hands, but the VR performance seems to exceed 3-stops improvement. It doesn't freeze a moving subject, but then it's my job to pick the right moment.

 

Although I've only had the lens a short time, I find it very useful to document events and to get the kind of closeups you indicate. The lens is also smaller in diameter than the original, the collar is much more rigid (should I use a tripod) and the foot is easily removeable for better handling.

Dunno about the VR, but I use the Canon 70-200/2.8 Image Stabiliser version and I regularly get sharp 1/30 shots handheld and if I add a monopod to it, I get good 1/15 almost all the time and even 1/6s shots sometimes.

 

For shooting weddings in a dark church with the people at the ceremony commonly being fairly still, the VR function will be appreciated beyond belief. I reckon paying the extra $$ for the IS function in my case was worth every cent. I love getting intimate, emotional shots near the altar, so the 70-200 is one I use a lot, in combination with my 16-35mm, on a digital body with a 1.6x crop factor.

 

If you see yourself shooting shots down to 1/30s a lot, you're going to lve the VR. Heehee !

I have the non-AFS 80-200 and it's a great lens but if I could have VR for $500 more I'd definately get it. I've used the AF-S which does focus a little quicker, but the non-AFS is fine for this use. Like the poster above said, it won't stop a moving subject but if you time your shots carefully, VR should be a very useful tool.

When comparing the 80-200 f/2.8 AF-S to the newer 70-200 VR, I think there is a trade-off. The 70-200 VR lens would theoretically allow you 3 stop improvement, but possibly at a cost. First the monetary cost as this lens is more expensive than any of Nikon's previous 80-200 f/2.8 lenses. Second according to my understanding the VR feature works by moving one or more of the elements around to compensate for camera shake. But this optical design is likely inferior to the fixed element 80-200 f/2.8 models. If you shoot with a film camera (F6, F5, F100, etc.) the VR feature might be worth your while. But if you shoot digital (D200, D2x, etc.) just boost your ISO up by 3 stops. From ISO 100 that means ISO 800. And for those shots where you need a 3 stop advantage (ISO 800) with a D200 or D2x you will likely be very pleased with your images. The noise is imperceptable and the overall image quality at ISO 800 is quite good.

 

For wedding work I use the 80-200 f/2.8 mainly for outdoor shots (after the ceremony but before the reception). For indoor work at the reception there are better choices than the 80-200 or the 70-200.

 

Steve