Nikon 80-200 mm f/2.8D ED AF vs 70-200mm VR

[sarah_reller]

I'm buying a D300, and just bought a Nikon 50mm f/1.8. I would also like a good

telephoto because I've noticed that I am usually shooting around 200mm. I'm

seriously considering the 80-200mm ED AF. Is this lense just as good as the 70-

200mm VR that happens to be twice the price? I imagine that it's more expensive

because of the VR but I don't think that justifies such a large price difference.

Thank you in advance, Sarah

[gpjoell3]

Sarah,

 

I have the 70-200mm VR and I absolutely love it. You get a couple extra stops of light with the VR. This is great for low light situations. Here is my suggestion. Rent both of the and test them out. Although it might be a slight difference, one or two stops make a big difference when it comes to getting a clear photo. Oh by the way, it was a big hit when I purchased my 70-200mm VR two years ago, however, now I am glad I made the right choice.

 

George

[kari douma]

I had the 80 - 200, and upgraded to the 70-200VR. If funds are tight, or you are just starting out, the 80 - 200 is a beautiful lens. But, the 70-200 is definately worth it. The main thing is the VR. With the 80 - 200 I couldn't hand hold under 1/125 without getting camera shake. But, now with the 70-200, I can hand hold down to 1/45. Big difference if you are in low light and don't have or don't want to use a tripod. With the 80-200 I used a tripod A LOT, with the 70-200 I barely use it.

[ilkka_nissila]

The 70-200 has excellent MTF in the center of the frame and very little if any CA. It has VR, which is useful in many situations, and AF-S which allows better tracking of moving subjects (in sports photography this is really important) and easy manual adjustment without flicking switches. The features are in favour of the newer lens, and if you only use DX then there is no drawback except the extra weight over the 80-200/2.8D AF N - and the higher price.

 

If you plan on getting an FX body, then I would not buy a new 70-200, but instead one of the earlier versions which based on MTF are more optimized for the whole 35mm / FX frame. The center performance of the 80-200 models is not as good though. It's a question of what is most important to you. For my purposes FX is better and I'm going back to the older version for now, until Nikon revises the 70-200 for FX.

 

But really, if DX is what you use, then you'd be very pleased with the 70-200.

[ilkka_nissila]

Forgot to mention that the bokeh of the 70-200 is incredibly smooth. This is not as true of the 80-200, I'm afraid.

[ShunCheung]

If you shoot weddings professionally, VR worths every penny in the price difference. In wedding photography, it is common that you are not allowed to use a flash or it is impractical to use one, and you need to move around quickly to capture different angles so that you have no time to set up a tripod. The advantage of VR will be very obvious under those situations.

 

The 70-200mm/f2.8 VR is weak on the edges on the full FX frame. That can be a concern if you need edge-to-edge sharpness for landscape, product shots .... For wedding shots, few people would check for edge sharpness with a magnifing glass. Rather, it is more a matter of capturing the moment.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

I agree with Shun. The 70-200 is a fantastic lens for your purpose. The only people who seem to complain about soft corners shoot landscapes. Or folks who obsess over numbers instead of looking at real-world results.

 

Here's an example on flickr (not my shot). It looks pretty darn sharp.

 

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

I meant "shoot landscapes on full-frame sensors." Also, landscapes on the D300-sized sensor are a non-issue because you're using the center portion of the image circle.

[ilkka_nissila]

I agree that the corner softness on FX doesn't affect wedding photography but in some

cases if you have a light background you may have to apply vignetting correction

which can be a pain on a large number of images. Also there is geometrical distortion

on this lens on FX so if you shoot e.g. the couple going through a door the door may be

visibly distorted. I never noticed this myself but I discussed the lens with a wedding pro

who felt the lens wasn't a good choice for this kind of shot because of the distortion.

 

Anyway, as long as you shoot DX there is nothing to be concerned about. On FX

however I don't think VR is needed in this lens, or of much use. I prefer to use a faster

lens which will also stop subject movement. On DX the extra "reach" of this lens

makes VR more important, but in a wedding I like to work really close and rarely use

anything longer than 85mm.

[jonj]

I have the 80-200mm f2.8 and have very happy with it I just can't justify spending $1,700 on the VR when you can get the 80-200 f2.8 for $899 at B&H. Tha would leave you $800 for a D80 backup or a nice fisheye and extra SB800. Plus the 70-200 vr is way to long it's not comfortable to hold as the 80-200mm.

[ShunCheung]

As soon as I had posted the above comment, I checked DPReview and they have just reviewed this lens:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0805/08050201nikon70200review.asp

 

They confirm those drawbacks on the FX body. Again, none of those really applies to wedding photography. And Sarah is currently using a D300, which is a DX (small sensor) body anyway.

[frank_skomial]

One lens is AF and the other is AF-S. For weddings I supposed that difference may not matter that much. Just to make you aware of it...

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

I really like AF-S. But that's because I use this lens to shoot sports.

[ilkka_nissila]

There is also the matter of the flare sensitivity of the 70-200. This will likely be alleviated

with the next version which will probably feature nano-coated elements (like the 14-24 and

24-70). Something to consider before investing in this lens.

 

I think wedding ceremonies often take place in extremely high contrast venues and so the

flare and ghosting are more likely than in many other applications. E.g. 85/1.4 and 180/2.8

are great lenses which do not have this problem.

[sarah_reller]

Thank you guys, that gives me a lot more to think about. It's still a tough decision though, but I'm leaning toward the 80-200mm just because it's half the price of the 70-200 VR and almost just as capable, just no VR.

[james hoang]

I have used both at weddings and can say that I see no significant IQ differences worth mentioning. Both version produces fantastic images. As for VR, I tried never to put myself in a situations where I was depending on VR to capture sharp images so VR was not important to me. Not to say that it always works out as planned but I avoid such situations as much as possible. What I found that was invaluable for me was the AF-S. AF speed is very important to me. I ended up with the 80-200mm AF-S lens and loved it. Get the 70-200mm just for AF-S if you can.

[wedding-photography-denver]

Sarah,

 

really consider the Tokina 50-135 if you are getting a DX compatibility lens. I have the 70-200Vr and the Tokina produces nicer images IMO. Richer somehow.

 

Just a thought.