70-200 vs 80-200 Nikkor

[cmonkey]

Besides one being a "G" lens, what are the differences between these

two lenses, particularly in terms of sharpness and contrast? How would

either compare to a 180 f/2.8, which I already own? Thank you! Cheryl

[curt wiler]

I have both the 70-200 VR and 80-200 AF-S, which I believe is optically similar to the older version which is being sold now. Between these lenses, I can find very litle difference in optical performance but the 70-200 is smaller and much more convenient to pack and use. Obviously it also has the advantages of VR. I also have the 180mm prime, in the 20-year old AIS version. At this focal length it is far sharper and is the standard that I compare all medium telephotos against. The zooms are just not as good at their maximum length as they are at shorter focal lengths, in my experience.

[ilkka_nissila]

The 70-200 has AF-S and VR and it is a relatively thin design, which make it a nice lens to use. It also has very smooth bokeh. The 180/2.8 has higher contrast and sharpness at wide apertures and is obviously very compact in comparison with the zooms.

 

I would recommend the 70-200 if you use a digital body.

[alex_lofquist]

While either zoom with their multiplicity of groups will be much more susceptable to ghosting and flare, it is the price you pay for the flexibility of zooming. I think that my Nikkor 70-200 will almosr completely replace my 70-210 Sigma, except where weight is paramount.

[hayward]

I wouldn't worry about it being a G lens. I had the 180mm 2.8 AF and sold it when I bought the 70-200 VR. I didn't so any side-by-side comparisons, but if the 180 was sharper, I couldn't tell. The 180 is smaller and slower focusing. The VR is a plus with the 70-200, but I wouldn't make a decsion just on that.

 

I had an old 80-200 2.8 AF which seemed a touch softer than the other two lenses and was certainly slower focusing.

 

For me the big disadavantage of the 180 was no being able to recompose quickly for sports and events. I was missing too many shots.

[ilkka_nissila]

There are two disadvantages to G lenses: 1) You can't use them on most older bodies (or at least you lose A and M modes), and 2) The body controlled aperture is less reproducable, so you get some random exposure variations which wouldn't happen if you shot in A or M modes and used the aperture ring to control aperture.

[bdpics]

I think the Nikkor 70-200 is a very nice lens, but I think that either the 80-200AF ED or especially the 80-200AFS do 95%+ of what the 70-200 does for a fraction of the price.

 

The measurbators will disagree, but fortunately many of them have sold their 80-200's in favor of the latest and greatest and thus a mint used 80-200ED can be picked up for les than $600--compared to $1,600+ for the 70-200VR that can't be used on most film bodies. The Nikkor 80-200 series lenses are legendary for their crisp, sharp images--on both film and digital.

 

Contrast-wise most folks agree that the 80-200AFS and 70-200VR are nearly the same, the 70-200 does have slightly better bokeh according to some.

 

A used 80-200ED will set you back $5-600, leaving you with about $1,000 to spend on other lenses--heck you could even buy a used 80-200ED AND new copy of Photoshop CS2 (which would easily compensate for the slight bokeh and contrast differences) and STILL have an extra $400 or so in your pocket.....

[basarab]

There are only 2 significant difference that I see: price and VR. If you shoot a lot at night and hand held then the 70-200 is your thing. Otherwise the 80-200 is the one to have.

[ilkka_nissila]

Well, I think the 80-200 does about 30% of what the 70-200 does, so the latter is actually a bargain. :-) It just depends on what you use it for. The VR gives so much additional sharpness in most hand-held situations that it's a no-brainer IMO.

[ilkka_nissila]

Notice also that the 70-200 supports TC-E teleconverters with full metering and VR support.