80-200 AF-S vs 70-200 VR

[jim1169]

I have been considering these 2 lenses and would appreciate input from those

who have used both. Are the optics noticeably different, any difference in

handling or AF?.Aside from VR why would I chose one over the other, they will

be used on an F 100 and D 80.

Thx

[frank_skomial]

Jim,

 

I have seen few posts discussing your question, if you search photo.net you could find more.

 

If I remember (?), major answer was, if "Aside from VR", then there is not much reason to get the VR lens that is perhaps twice expensive. Optically both lenses are comparable, while owners of VR tend to argue that their lenses are better.

 

I have the 70-200 VR lens and it is good, but nowhere near as good as 85/1.4 (77mm filter), or latest AF 180/2.8 Nikkor. Some owners of the 70-200 VR argue that their zoom 70-200 VR lens is as good as the primes I mentioned. Please...

 

You will have to make your own search, and come up with decision that could save you hundreds of dollars in your pocket. Best if you could rent both and compare.

 

Usage of the VR on a boat, or vehicle, or for static objects in low light is helpful, but the 3 f-stop advantage is more of luck than repeatable experience. VR lens is more finicky, you have to "park" it, and only Nikok can repair them - so make sure you get 5 years Nikon warranty on it. Since Nikon warrantly is generally not-transferable, getting a used VR lens could be more costly than getting a new one. Contact Nikon center and ask if they will repair a used VR lens for you.

[Ed_Ingold]

I have both lenses, and they are about the same optically. The VR is slimmer and about an inch longer. It also has a much better tripod foot, which can be removed for better hand-held use. I replaced the foot with a Really Right Stuff version, which fits an Arca clamp. The VR is a G lens, which won't be a problem for you.

 

The main reason to get the VR is to get the VR ;-) It is very effective. You don't need a tripod every time the sun goes behind a cloud. The pictures are much sharper when hand-held, even at 1/250 second. I get a good percentage of keepers as slow as 1/15. Subject motion is the main problem at that speed.

[Ed_Ingold]

Franks says the 180/2.8 and 85/1.4 are sharper. Nikon seems to disagree. Here are the links, judge for yourself.

 

180/2.8 http://www.nikon-image.com/jpn/products/lens/af/singlefocal/telephoto/ai_af_ed_180mmf28d_if.htm

 

84/1.4 http://www.nikon-image.com/jpn/products/lens/af/singlefocal/telephoto/ai_af_85mmf14d_if.htm

 

70-200/2.8 VR http://www.nikon-image.com/jpn/products/lens/af/zoom/telephoto/af-s_vr_ed_70-200mmf28g_if.htm

 

80-200/2.8 ED http://www.nikon-image.com/jpn/products/lens/af/zoom/telephoto/ai_af_ed_80-200mmf28d.htm

[chris_leck]

Nikon authorized repair facilities can work on the 70-200mm. Nikon will fix used lenses (although possibly not gray market). I have experience with both of these issues.

[robert_finkelman]

Edward -

 

MTF curves and such are just one indicator of lens performance, and can only be given so much creedence for two very simple resons:

 

1) MTF tests are done in a test room environment with all performance affecting variables (temperature, humidity, light sources, color temperature) adjusted to yield maximum results. The environment in which these tests are done is therefore solely an indicator of how a lens will perform in a best case scenario. This does not represent how a lens will perform in real world situations where many of these parameters are likey to be quite different. Even some of the most knowledgeable and renowned photography experts do not place much weight on these tests, and instead trust their own experiences on how a given lens performs.

 

2) Lenses vary from sample to sample. Even a company like Nikon which invests tremendous sums of money into quality control sees variances in performance between samples of the same model of lens. Michael Weber and Thom Hogan, both highly esteemed photographers and lens experts, write of many instances in which two samples of the same lens have varied greatly in terms of sharpness, contrast and even exposure. The point being, we don't know the quality of samples Nikon used for those MTF tests. One would assume that they used control samples, but the website doesn't state that.

 

In closing, I own the 85 1.4, 80-200 AF-S and 180 2.8D, and find the 85 to be the best of the lot for my own work. The other two, have no doubt, provide me with excellent results as well. I only see slight differences, and it's doubtful in a blind test that you would be able to tell the difference.

 

Rob

[frank_skomial]

It is good to know that Ewdard knows Japaneese, because from the charts you cannot derive the statement that Edward did.

[robert_finkelman]

Edward -

 

Also, I noticed that the link to the MTF curve for the 80-200 is for the wrong lens. The curve you linked is for the 80-200 2.8D ED, not the 80-200 2.8D ED-IF AF-S. Two totally different lenses with totally different optical formulas.

 

Rob

[ShunCheung]

Take a look at the answers in this thread and there are many others in the archive: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00HzFz

 

It boils down to whether you need VR or not, and to a lesser degree, do you need to use this lens on an MF film body which is not compatible with G lenses (The 70-200 VR is a G lens.).

[frank_skomial]

It is too late but I will provide tests shots from 70-200 VR lens and 180/2.8 and 85, perhaps next week.

 

This reminds me my first "shocking" discovery about lenses some 20 years ago.

 

While traveling across US national parks some 20 years ago, my uncle used a Carl Zeiss lens 50 mm on a camera made by Pentacon East Germany. I had the latest and greatest at that time Canon 35mm SLR with 50 mm lens. Since my camera had built-in meter, and the old Pentacon meter did not, I remember telling my uncle how to set his camera based on readings from Canon. I was sure that we were exposing identically, used the same type of color negative film, from the same spot, and at the same time.

 

To my shocking surprise, my uncle's old Pentacon inexpensive camera produced consistently better pictures at print sizes 8x10" and larger.

 

I searched for explanation, and perhaps the most "wise" explanation from photo experts at Frank's camera in Highland Park resulted in something like this:

 

"Those Japaneese they test their lenses on a short optical bench, and provide graphs that sell better. Once you set old Zeiss to inifinity, hey brother ! - do you need any better explanation? You have printed proof in your hands".

[kfuse]

I'm also in the market for mid-range telephoto Lens, so I've been thinking the exact same thing. 80-200mm, 70-200mmVR, 180mm, 85mmF1.4.

 

I usually go to "www.pbase.com/cameras" to compare photos (you can search by camera, lense, brand etc...), then go to "http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html" to check the MTF/distortion (not all lenases are tested though). I'm not sure how accurate these sites are, but can be used as a guide.

[Ed_Ingold]

The 80-200 AFS lens has been discontinued, and the Japanese site no longer carries its MTF data. Since I cannot provide a link, I will attach an image file - fuzzy but legible enough to tell the story.

 

I agree that MTF curves don't tell everything - build quality, price, pride of ownership, bokeh, etc. - but they do tell a lot, are objective and reproducible. Some prefer to "measure" their equipment in other ways. In the scientific world it is said (per Lord Kelvin) that if you can't put numbers to something, you don't know very much about it.

 

The Japanese site does not make any statements comparing one lens with another, other than publishing the MTF curves. It is in Nikon's interest to be consistent, and the curves are self-explanatory if you know how to read them. Unlike Canon, Nikon curves are based on actual measurements, not theoretical, ray-tracing values. Please feel free to reject the facts if they do not agree with your conclusions.<div></div>

[frank_skomial]

From Edward's own links the MTFs for 70-200 VR at 200 tele can be compared to MTF of the 180 mm lens.

 

To me it is clear that the 180 mm lens has uniform and steady resolution from 0 to all the way 20+, while the MTF for the 70-200 VR lens falls sharply down starting at about 15, and dips much earlier. This confirms my real life picture tests experience that the 180 mm is far sharper lens including corners and edges. The graphs tend to confirm the 180mm superior sharpness in the corners and edged of the frame.

 

See for yourself, possibly you will read it the way Edward does. The graph on the left is for 70-200 VR lens at 200 mm zoom, and the second graph is for the 180/2.8 lens.

 

These are the obvious facts that I have difficulties to ignore. Possibly I do not read those graphs right?<div></div>

[briany]

Frank, I guess it depends on if you're shooting digital or film. If you're shooting film but using old MF bodies, you won't be buying the G lens anyway. On a 16x24mm DX frame, the distance from center to corner is 14.4mm. Out to 14.4mm on those graphs, the 70-200 has higher MTF at both 10 and 30 lp/mm, FWIW.