Question about Nikon 70-200 2.8&80-200mm -vs- Canon 70-200mm 2.8 is/usm/l

Hello all, I am a diehard nikon user. ( However, while out on a meetup with some

other photogs I was given the chance to use the infamous 70-200 canon 2.8. I

mean I feel in love.(please don't kill me I'm sorry) I have yet had the opporunity to

try out the nikon 80-200 or 7o -200mm which I'm sure delivers stuning results.

Just wondering has anyone used both the nikon and the canon version and what

are their feelings on the two. Ie build qualily, handling button placement and image

quality, vignetting.

 

 

thanks.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0805/08051602canon70200review.asp

 

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_70-200_2p8_is_usm_c16/

 

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_70-200_2p8_vr_n15/

I think that most photographers will have an 'epiphany' the first time they use any of these lenses. Yours happened with a Canon. I wouldn't entertain jumping ship on that basis.

 

If you poke around this site, you'll find numerous threads comparing and contrasting the different versions of the Nikon lens. They're all quite good, and very useful tools.

Anthony, you will also find the Nikon variations to provide a similarly religious experience. Out of curiosity, what camera body/ies do you use?

Anthony,

 

I own the AF-S 70-200 VR f/2.8 and use it with a D300 -- IMHO (and the HO of many others) it is absolutely stellar. Very fast AF on my system and way sharp. I'm sure a several other people will chime from this forum with similar comments.

 

BTW, I also suggest that you go to photozone.de and check our their review of both the Canon and Nikon 70-200 f/2.8's. Although they are comparable lenses, if my memory serves correctly, the Nikon received a more favorable review. Also, Bjorn did an extensive review of the Nikon 70-200 which is a good read -- very informative:

 

http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html

I have a film n75 and d80. I love nikon and would'nt leave, but that lens was pretty nice in nyc central park. I think I'll go to b&h this weekend and play around with the 70-200 and the 180 2.8

I doubt that there is enough of a difference, if any at all, between the two lenses that it would be worth switching to Canon over it. The two lenses remarkable similar in design and performance.

 

Of more importance might be the body you use and the camera's settings.

 

I have both (although the non-IS version of the Canon 70-200 f2.8). I consider the lenses equal but find I in general I get better results with my Canon because I believe the Canon body I am using Canon lenses with gives me better results. I think the results you get will depend on which body you use and how you use the lens. All things being somewhat equal, I think you will get somewhat equal results.

Anthony: As the others have said (including those that answered the near-identical

question you posed on the EOS forum), the Brand N and Brand C versions of the 70-

200/2.8 are all excellent lenses. Nothing there to justify a brand switch. If you do not

need f2.8 and the accompanying weight, bulk, and cost, Canon offers two 70-200/4

lenses, one with stabilization and one without. I've owned both of those and they are

superb, and much easier to handle than the f2.8 versions.

Hi Mark, Yeah, I'm not thinking about switching I just wanted to pose the question to get some thoughts and opinions from people that have been on both sides of the fence. I'm just curious and was amazed. I'm only an amtr hobbyist. And with all else being equal, I like nikon to mucn (not to mention I'm fully vested$$$$) and like and photography It will depend more on my creative eye and skill then any lens or new fangle body. But thanks for the help and responses :) :) :0

Hi Anthony, here in photo.net, we really don't like people posting the same question to multiple forums:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00PZsE

 

The Nikon 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR has already been discussed to no end recently. The biggest problem with that lens at the moment is availability. I don't think B&H has it in stock, but hopefully they have demo untis available in their store. I am quite sure that they do; last time I was there, they had a 600mm/f4 AF-S on display.

Sorry about that double post shaun, I was just trying to get an opinion from both sides of the fence. Please delete the post in the other thread. just thought asking but slighly altering would also get some ideas from the canonians thx shun

First of all, I don't moderate the EOS Forum, so I can't delete threads there, but more importantly, once there are useful answers, we are reluctant to delete threads because that means wasting the effort from all of those who have responded. Some people can get really ticked off, perhaps with good reasons.

 

The real differences between Canon and Nikon lenses are the ones the other system doesn't have. With Nikon adding the 400, 500, and 600mm VR lenses and the 24mm PC-E recently, the remaining differences are getting small, such as Nikon still doesn't have any f1.4 AF-S wides, Canon's 400mm/f4 DO (Differective Optics) is quite unique. Nikon has the very popular 18-200mm DX and a 200-400mm/f4.

 

I woudn't worry about any difference between the 70-200mm/f2.8. Canon does make two versions of the 70-200mm/f4, with and without IS. Some hikers prefer the smaller f4 version because of the (lack of) weight.

I have an epiphany every time I slap the 80-200 2.8 push pull on either my D2H or D200. I wonder why I just don't keep it on all the time. Then I remember that it's about as inconspicuous as a Mack truck and ways about the same.

While I have the Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8, it is heavy. For that reason, I kept my Sigma 70-210 f/3.5-f/4.5 APO for its portability. It does give good imaging on full-frame, but is a bit fragile mechanically. I literally had it come apart in my hands while riding over rough country roads. Still, I liked it enough to justify having it repaired. So, if you can afford it, it's worthwhile having a lighter back-up lens for travel or long walks.

Anthony,

 

just so that you know.... I know many Canon shooters who've left Canon to get the 70-200VR on their new Nikon cameras. I also know many Canon shooters who're ogling with envy the 70-200VR.

 

I did play with the 5D & a 24-105L lens once. I could not really like the camera, but I fell in love with the lens. All I needed to do was go out & buy a 17-55 & now the 24-70 (one is leaving, but I need to ensure I have a wide angle lens to cover the wide end). I was lacking beneath 70mm & the purchase of a wide angle lens took care of that.

 

Go rent a 70-200VR & stick it on your camera. I'm sure you'll fall in love.

 

Lil :)

Alex,

 

You're the first person I have ever heard sing the praises of the Sigma 70-210mm f3.5-4.5 APO Macro. I purchased this lens years ago as a "disposable lens" to photograph sailboat races in Hawaii. It turned out to have amazing sharpness throughout the focal range and so I too have kept it. Despite repeated salt water splashings, the lens still functions perfectly, which is astonishing because of the poor build quality. Too bad this lens was in such short production and was replaced by the optically inferior Sigma 70-300mm f4-5.6 APO Macro. Sometimes I notice the 210mm f3.5-4.5 APO Macro at auction on eBay and no one even bids on it or it goes for almost nothing. It was and still remains a sleeper.

The 70-200 VR on a D300 is a breathtaking combination.

 

And I mean that literally - it's so heavy you get out of breath picking it up. 21 elements - solid glass. And seriously, on the D300 the results are fantastic - center sharpness beats the Canon and the other metrics are equally impressive. On an FX body, maybe not quite so great, especially at the edges, but it's still heavy.

Canon wins on variety, because I know I and others would rather have a "hike-able"

lens like the f4 lenses Canon offers, but Nikon doesn't offer them... yet... (I think all the

70/80-200 f2.8 lenses are too heavy... for an amateur like me that is...)

 

I've checked them both out, and they are, imho, basically a wash. Canon and Nikon

both make such excellent stuff!

I've tried the 70-200 VR Nikkor at the store, and I got some wonderful images on my D300. But recently this lens has been found to have terribly soft corners when used on a FX camera. To me that's only a rumor that I can't really prove or disprove w/o a FX camera.

 

The Nikon 80-200 AF-D is an older lens. It is often considered to be slightly inferior optically to the 70-200 when used on DX, but it probably doesn't have corner problems on FX. Compare to Nikon's 70-200 VR and well as the Canons, it lacks the faster USM/AF-S (SWM) AF, and the availability to have fulltime AF. The Nikon 80-200 also lacks VR/IS, which could be problematic with telephoto shots at slower shutter speeds.

 

As of now, all of the Canon 70-200s have modern ring type USM AF. They also offer a cheaper varient: the 70-200 f/4L. So I guess Canon does have a better selection of 70-200s, of course that statement is not politically correct to say on the Nikon forum.

As Shuo has pointed the 70-200mm VR does have an issue on FX cameras and you will find other threads on this forum about it whereas the 80-200mm is fine and is the lens I happily use now on the D3. On DX cameras the 70-200mm VR is lovely.

 

In my Canon days I used the 70-200mm f4 L (non-is) and it was small, extremely well built and had no issues on the full frame/reduced frame issue. Now that is the lens I wish Nikon would try to reproduce as well as correcting the FX flaw with the current VR.