80-200 (non AF-S) vs 70-200VR

[tony_cabrera]

Hello out there! I haven't posted in months but I just wanted to see

if anyone share the same opinion as I do.

 

First off I see that Shun is now sporting a D2X. I knew he wouldn't

wait that long!

 

I've been shooting with both the 80-200 and the 70-200VR this wedding

season. And I'm finding that the image quality on the 80-200 is far

superior to the VR. I'm now only using the VR during dark lit church

ceremony when flash is not allowed. And the VR is far more expensive.

Makes me wanna snatch an AFS version of the 80-200 from ebay or

something...<div></div>

[ShunCheung]

About a year ago, I planned our trip to Madagascar in September this year. Therefore, I had a deadline for getting equipment for the trip. In addition to the D2X, I also bought a 70-200mm/f2.8 VR to shoot in the low-light, rain forest conditions in Madagascar. Earlier this year I made a number of comparisons between that and the earlier 80-200mm/f2.8 AF-S, which I still own.

 

At least based on my two samples, I find their performances very similar at various focal lengths. Moreover, back in 1999, I paid about $1400 for the 80-200mm/f2.8 AF-S at B&H. This year I paid $1600 for the VR also at B&H, but after the $150 rebate, it was back down to $1450. So the two lenses cost essentially the same before factoring in any inflation between those 6 years.

 

Years ago I had the pre-AF-S 80-200mm/f2.8 AF, the very first generation. That is definitely less expensive but I don't think its optical quality is any better than the AF-S ones.

[jeffrey moore]

Tony, I don't share your assessment that the 70-200 VR is a lesser lens than either of the two 80-200 versions you mentioned. I am 25+ year Nikon shooter and I think the 70-200 VR is Nikon's finest lens in this zoom range.

 

A couple of well respected sources on all things Nikon (Thom Hogan and Bjorn Rorlsett) agree with me. In fact, the opening words of Rorslett's summary of the 70-200VR are, "A huge improvement over the AFS 80-200/2.8 . . . "

 

I love this lens.

[tony_cabrera]

Maybe I'm just used to the 80-200 as they behave differenlty. Has to be "operator error"... =\

 

Don't get me wrong though, I do love the VR and the fact that I no longer need a monopod to shoot low light. That reason alone is worth the money.

[ShunCheung]

Tony, if I were you, I would find another sample of the 70-200mm/f2.8 VR and compare it against yours. There is a chance that your sample is somewhat defective.

[asaf_tzadok]

Tony,

 

What do you mean by saying "Image Quality".

 

What are the most important issue ? Sharpness, Bokeh, Ghosting, Flare ?

 

I think every reviewer (and the ones mentioned as well) agrees that the older version is superior when it comes to ghosting and flare.

 

Asaf.

[todd_phillips1]

I may have to check out the VR version....I have the AFS and find it outstanding in every way. Even with TCE 1.4 converter (or whatever the designation is for the correct one).

 

I can't imagine the VR (used in a daylight situation) is sharper, but I'm willing to be impressed.

[klix]

I had both lenses as well (sold the 80-200, kept the 70-200 VR), and at least with my samples, the 70-200mm was just better all around. I also shoot from moving platforms, so active VR is a god-send.

 

KL

[lex_jenkins]

I suspect that some of the dissatisfaction with the VR lenses may have something to do with technique.

 

Using the VR effectively isn't intuitive and isn't explained adequately by Nikon. While a camera like the D2X (or my D2H) responds virtually instantaneously, as do AF-S lenses on these cameras, the VR introduces a slight but potentially significant delay.

 

The problem is that the time needed for the VR to engage by partially depressing the shutter release button can lag behind just enough to cause some missed shots. They may be very slightly out of focus, giving the impression of optical softness.

 

If you examine the view through the finder carefully as you engage and disengage the VR (by partially depressing and releasing pressure from the shutter release button, not by turning the VR on/off), you'll notice some very subtle things going on. The image shifts ever so slightly when VR is engaged and again when it's disengaged. This can be a bit disconcerting at first. Also, there's a very faint, almost imperceptible whine while the VR is engaged, and an equally faint "thunk" when the VR is disengaged. This appears to be normal because I noticed the same things on my 24-120 VR and on the 70-200/2.8 VR and 80-400 VR I examined in a local shop.

 

Because of this very slight lag time needed to engage the VR, when I'm anticipating a shot or series of shots, I leave pressure on the shutter release button constantly to ensure the VR is always on and ready to go. This helps reduce the risk of blown shots that are slightly misfocused.

 

There are drawbacks. For one thing, my finger cramps from the continued pressure. For another, continuous use of the VR drains the battery quicker. I decided the best solution for me was to buy extra batteries rather than worry about conserving juice and risking missed shots.

 

Anyway, these VR lenses are different beasts and do require a slight modification in shooting technique to get the best results.

[vincent_forrester1]

I have to agree with the OP. I bought the 80-200 non AF-S about 4 years ago. Wonderful lens. A few months back, I paid a visit to Grays in London to try out the 70-200 VR. I took a few shots with it and later went home to compare the 2. I definately preferred the images with my 80-200 - they were sharper (if only by a small amount) and the contrast was better too. I am use to the VR feature as I also use C***N's image stabilisation lenses at work. I phoned Grays thge next day and the salesman told me he wasn't surprised! He said that Nikon have released quite a few versions of the 80-200 and basically know the in's and out's of it. Whereas, the 70-200 VR is slightly newer...

 

Anyway, the VR feature is excellent and I would be happy to have it over minor differences in quality compared to the non VR 80-200.

 

Just my 2 pence worth.

[constance_cook]

Lex has it right. I have all these lenses and the 70 - 200 AFS VR, used with proper technique is as good as any of them and in situations where a slower shutter speed is necessary, it is better.

 

Having said that, the caveat is -- it matters which camera you're using. If you're using a high-end model, F6, D2x, etc. your results will be better because of power, especially hand-held. With a lower end camera, F80, etc. even with the grip, it is difficult sometimes to achieve the same results.

 

Conni

[nikos peri]

I'll chime in with another "old is better"...<p>

Had both, and found that <i>the way I was using that lens</i> was full open, and rarely out to 200mm. The 80-200 AFD beat the 70-200 VR hands down - without using VR, just optically.<p>

This may be down to sample variations (I may have had a lemon VR?), but I do believe it is very telling that Nikon continues to have the 80-200 AFD in its current lens line-up, right next to the VR version. It's a fantastic lens.

[ShunCheung]

I think Nikon continues to sell the 80-200mm/f2.8 AF-D (non-AF-S) with tripod collar because it is considerably cheaper. For those people who cannot afford the AF-S VR, the older version seems to be a good alternative.

[nikos peri]

Hmmm... you're almost painting Nikon as an quasi-altruistic outfit that listens to its customers! And we KNOW that's not true. ;-)<p>

I can't think of any other example where they keep an old lens in the line-up next to a new (indeed, they even skipped a generation by killing the 80-200 AFS). If you can't afford it, get the 70-300 f/4.5-5-6 of something or other. But if you want like-for-like (i.e. same max aperture, same coverage) this is the only lens there... and the one that many people (including me) think is superior in some areas to the "new and improved" version. Coincidence?

[ShunCheung]

I used to have the very first generation of the 80-200mm/f2.8 AF from 1988. Optically it is indentical to the AF-D tripod collar version that is still in production. I sold that lens several years ago after I got the AF-S. At that time most of the test reports I read indicated that the AF-S is superior optically. I never compared those lenses carefully myself. Of course, I still have lots of slides from that old lens and I certainly don't see any obvious difference from one version to another.

 

One disadvantage of the AF-S versions is that they have more elements, especially the VR. If you shoot into the sun for sun rise, sun set type shots, flare and ghosting can be a problem. Over the last 16 years, I have had 3 different generations of 70/80-200mm/f2.8 AF lenses (out of the 5 Nikon ever manufactured so far). At least I usually don't spend much time worrying about any minute differences among them.

 

As we said in another thread, photography is mainly about the photographer. I try to avoid the really bad lenses, but otherwise, it is unlikely that anybody can tell from your final image exactly which lens you use.

[constance_cook]

I have all three of these lenses. The 80 - 200 is the collared model. It's major advantage among the three is size and weight. It balances better when used on manual focus cameras. The AFS version is deadly sharp and fast and good for situations wwhere you need speed and amazing AF. But it is huge compared to the earlier model and not something you want to lug if the other will do. The 70 - 200 AFS VR is a G lens with the obvious limitations. It is also not as small as the earlier 80 - 200 model.

 

These three lenses all cover nearly the same range and speed but if you have and use all three, it becomes obvious which is best for what you want to do. Each has limitations that can be worked around but they are not insignificant to customers and I can see why Nikon retains all three. Those who use both manual and AF cameras, and there are many of us, find that the earlier model would be the one to keep. For others, one of the others would work best.

 

I probably use the 70 - 200 VR more because I have a slight tremor part of the time. I don't really see much difference between the three in sharpness but I rather like the color from the 70 - 200 VR better.

 

Conni

[studio_eyeworks]

I too have the 70-200 VR and when I first used it, I took it on an assignment - along with

my 80-200 AFS. Boy, was I surprised. The 70-200 were virtually unusable. Fortunately, I

backed them up with 80-200 so shoot wasn't lost. Once at home, I test the lens and

confirmed my suspicions. The lens was defective. The lens was a two days old. B&H said

call Nikon. I call Nikon -I'm an NPS member -and they said send it in for repairs. I

RANTED that I didn't pay all this money to have a REPAIRED lens - I wanted a brand new

lens. They said too bad, call B&H. I call B&H and they listen to my story. And they said,

OK, we'll take it back and send you a new one. They did, and it was fine. So don't discount

the fact you may have a defective lens. And Nikon doesn't seem to give a sh?t about

maintaining professional relations with customers.

[steve_stracquodaine]

I was looking to buy the 80-200 f/2.8D lens for about $860 new, but decided and bought a mint in box (unused) 80-200 f/2.8 AF-S for $1,200 (eBay). My only regrets might be the potential for flaring due to the additional elements and the extra size/weight compared with the 80-200 f/2.8D lens. I will decide after receiving the lens. I didn't go with the 70-200 VR lens because of it's higher price (I already spent too much for the AF-S model) and because the VR feature might yield ever so slightly inferior image results. In my experience with the 24-120 VR lens, the VR feature works o.k. but if you put the VR lens and camera on a tripod and forget to shut off the VR function the lens will not perform as well. It seems that the VR likes movement. And when movement is absent (as with a tripod) the lens might create its own movement by shifting the lens elements as if hunting for movement. Anyway, I wonder if other VR users have noticed the same. If you shoot digital and want a 2 or 3 stop advantage, instead of buying a VR lens just boost your ISO by 2-3 stops. The D200's and D2x's can handle 800-1,000 ISO with no problem.

 

Steve