Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 D AF ED vs. Nikon 55-200mm VR

[jason j]

I am looking for a lens that allows me to take better photos of my son and

daughter in school plays from 10 to 30 feet away in dim lighting. I have seen a

Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6 G IF-ED VR for $250 and a Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 D AF ED

for $400. I have been told that each lens is two stops better than the Nikon AF

nikkor 28-200mm 3.5-5.6 G ED.

 

So here is my question: Which will work better at 10-30 feet in dim lighting,

the Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6 G IF-ED VR for $250 and a Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 D AF

ED for $400?

 

Thanks!

[michaelging]

The 80-200 2.8 is a much better pick,the other lens might let you shoot a photo of a still object at a slower shutter speed, but people move,and too slow of shutter speed will kill sharpness in any photo where something is moving.

[titospna]

If you only need 10-30 feet, I suggest the 85mm AFD (1.8) for less than $400. The VR on the 55-200 will only get you so much light to play with and then you'll be wishing for the faster lens. Can you really get a 80-200 f/2.8 for $400?

[kfoster70]

where are you getting a 80-200mm f/2.8 for $400?

[juanjo_viagran]

"Can you really get a 80-200 f/2.8 for $400?"

 

NO... unless you get a beat up older push zoom...:/

 

I just bought the TOKINA 80-200mm AT-X pro 2.8 AF and paid more than $400.

 

Don't know if I got lucky with a good copy but this Tokina is VERY sharp even wide open.

 

highly recommended.

[ShunCheung]

You might want to check out this recent thread on lenese for shooting ballet. There are a lot of pretty good answers that may be applicable to this case:

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

 

For dim light performance, you want fast lenses with wide apretures. VR will not be very useful with moving subjects. The 80-200mm/f2.8 may be a good choice but I agree that if you are as close as 10 to 30 feet away, a 85mm/f1.8 or 50mm/f1.8 may be better choices.

[ronald_moravec1]

I have a 55/200 VR that I got two weeks ago. It is a sharp lens, but the construction is not robust. The 2.8 80/200 are pro lenses that are more suitable for low light being 2.8, made much better, larger and heavier, and cost much more. The variable aperture of 4.0 at 55mm to 5.6 at 200 indicates it is not that suitable for low light.

 

I posted some ballet pics and used an aperture of 2.5. I needed it.

 

My choice of the 55/200 VR was for outside travel photography where speed does not matter, light weight does.

 

An 80 1.4 would be perfect if you are within 30 feet. 80 1.8 second.

Use ISO 400 to 800.

[tim_knight]

I asked to shoot a dress rehearsal of the musical "Chicago" at our local theater just for the fun of it to see if I could do it with my D50 and 50/1.8 prime, no flash, using a tri-pod, 1/20, 2.8. You need to look for the moment when the action comes to a stop to still get quality shots.<div></div>

[alex_lofquist]

I would agree with Tito that the 85mm f/1.8 would be a good lens for this application. It's relatively light and maneuverable in tight situations.

[frank_skomial]

"I have been told that each lens is two stops better than the Nikon AF nikkor 28-200mm 3.5-5.6 G ED." - you were told wrong.

 

from the two lenses: (55-200mm f/4-5.6 VR for Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8), only the second lens is better by 2 F stops. Generally, you cannot trade VR for 2 stops of light, except for static subjects.

 

Further more, the 28-200 G lens has 3 ED, 3 Aspherical, and close focus correction, and is an excellent lens in hands of experienced photographer, but not fast enough for school plays in dim lighting, neither is the 55-200 VR.

[rene gm]

If you can get the 80-200 2.8 for $400, I think it is a good choice. It is listed over 800$. The lens is very good in midrange, where you apparently need it, but quite soft at 200mm, unless you stop down to F8/11. The 2.8 will give you short shutter speeds in good light. It is very bulky however.

 

The 55-200 is very good for non-action photography, in my oppinion better than the 80-200, due to VR, the lightweight build and the sharpness at F4 all over the range. It's also in a reasonable price range for an amateur.

[ShunCheung]

Among the various versions of the Nikon 80-200mm/f2.8 AF, two are AF-D. The earlier one has push/pull zoom and the later version has a tripod collar. The latter is still in production. This old thread has more details:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000nBZ

 

You probably can get the early one for $400 used since it has long been out of favor due to the lack of any tripod collar.

[jason j]

Thanks everyone for all the information. Shun, the old thread was especially helpful. I have used my 50mm 1.8 to shoot school plays, but I like being able to change focal length without changing lenses. An acquaintance had the 80-200 2.8 for sale, but all except the most recent version are available on EBAY for about $400. Thanks again.