Nikon 70-200 VR vs. 80-200 AF-S?

[mike k]

I've tried to search inside and outside of photo.net, but couldn't

find a good answer (yet). Has anybody have any experience or

compared the two lens in terms of optical quality? I can rent both

of them for the same price, so sale price isn't a factor. I mainly

do wedding photos and engagement photos. I know VR is an important

feature, and for low-light indoor situation, I'd probably go with 70-

200 VR. What about when we purely talk about optical quality, which

one is better?

 

Thanks!

[ShunCheung]

I currently have both lenses. As far as optical performance goes, they are a lot more similar than I had expected. Their strength and weaknesses are very close. The 70-200 VR may be more prone to flare because of the extra elements for VR, but the 80-200/2.8 AF-S is prone to flare itself.

 

I did some tests of them both with a 1.4x TC vs. 300mm primes, and the 300mm primes are much better. You can see some results in this thread:

 

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

 

For wedding work, having VR for indoor dim-light situations is a huge plus and therefore IMO the choice is easy. In fact, that was the main reason that I got the 70-200 VR.

[ray]

I've owned both lenses and I kept the 70-200 for it's additional versatility. You can see

Bjorn's comparison of the two lenses <a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/

lens_zoom_03.html#AFS80-200f2.8">here</a>.

[craig_bridge]

Any optical quality difference is down in the sample to sample differences.

[ilkka_nissila]

Some of Nikon's mtf data wide open for both lenses are available at

 

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

 

and

 

http://www.nikon-image.com/jpn/fi_cs/af_nikkor/af-s_zoom_ed_80-200_mtf.htm

 

Both lenses seem to be good, not perfect, but the 70-200 is slimmer and easier to handle. The 70-200 has a removeable tripod foot which is a better design than the old. And it has VR, which can pretty dramatically improve sharpness of hand-held shots in some situations.

If you have older bodies you either want to upgrade them to be VR and AF-S compatible or get the 80-200 because the VR lens doesn't have an aperture ring.

 

I'd go for the VR lens, simply because VR is cool and useful. When you put it on a DX digital SLR body, it'll give you a lot of reach and the VR is very useful - how often did you hand-hold a 300/2.8 equivalent without any problems? It's a supremely useful lens for many things.