70-200 vs 80-200 f2.8 on FX

[beac]

<p>As I save up for a fast zoom to try my hand outdoor, indoor sports shooting I'd like to get some advice and opinions on which of the above lenses is better on FX format. I've read that the newer 70-200 rocks on DX format, but some think it gets soft on FX (I have a D700). <br>

I'm sure the VR would come in handy in some situations, but in general, I see the ability to shoot at a faster shutter speed as being the big selling point on each for sports. I could save a bunch of money on the older model.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>The 70-200 also rocks on FX, but it has very poor extreme corners at 200mm. The areas affected are fairly small. It can be an issue (and actually a serious one) if you want corner-to-corner sharpness in a landscape shot. For shooting sports, at least I think it is a complete non-issue. When do you need an extremely sharp corner in a sports image?<br>

See my examples in this thread: <a href="http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Rdrl">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Rdrl</a></p>

[beac]

<p>Thanks Shun. Is the 80-200 a better choice for sharpness on FX if VR is not so important?</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Which 80-200mm/f2.8 do you have in mind?<br>

For several years I had both the 80-200mm/f2.8 AF-S and the 70-200 VR. I found their optical quality very similar on DX and 35mm film, but I sold the 80-200 a year and half ago, before I bought any FX DSLR. Therefore, I have never tested the 80-200 AF-S on FX.<br>

The 70-200 is thinner but longer. I find it easier to hand hold and having VR is a major advantage indoors. Its tripod collar is far superior than the one on the 80-200/2.8 AF-S. If you can afford it, to me the 70-200 is the obvious choice unless you shoot landscapes.</p>

[beac]

<p>Shun: great thread, I just had not scrolled down far enought to where you say you are unable to compare the two lenses on FX format because you sold the 80-200. Perhaps someone else can contribute on that matter. What a great forum this is.</p>

[Rene11664880918]

<p>Hi Brian! Shun is right! If you can afford it the 70-200 seems like a much better choice. I don't know what the problem is with soft corners at 200 mm! I sold my 80-200 (2 touch) coz I didn't use it much but I can tell you that is not a lens that you can handhold. I think the VR would help and I find AFS very important in every lens! </p>

[kuryan_thomas]

<p>One alternative is to shoot in 5:4 mode with the 70-200. You lose some resolution, however, and to me at least, the format is better suited to landscape than action. The D3x's 5:4 mode is still almost 21 megapixels.</p>

<p>My current plan is to continue shooting landscapes with the 70-200 in 5:4 mode until Nikon updates this lens. I think the challenge of a new (to me) aspect ratio will be exciting.</p>

[tuyen_tran]

<p>I have the 80-200 and I'm always surprised when people say it can't be handheld. The 80-200 can be successfully handheld down to rather slow shutter speeds; I think it really depends on your technique. Another thing to keep in mind: at 1/1000th the VR gets in the way as it will slow down your frame rate.</p>

[rick_helmke1]

I prefer the 80-200 myself. I like the image quality better on that lens than on the 70-200. It can be easily handheld and is very sharp and well built. Rick H.

[james_symington1]

<p>For sports it is a great lens - for landscapes it is an expensive lemon. It really is diabolical. Severe corner softness from about 110mm onwards whatever the aperture you use. On a D3/D700 you lose 500 pixels in each corner in each direction to this softness. If you cropped your photograph to exclude the bad bits you actually have to toss away about 50% of the area of your photograph - literally.</p>

[james_symington1]

<p>Oh yes - the 80-200mm AFD is what I have gone back to. Problem solved as its performance in this regard is first class although it does produce more chromatic aberrations (easily dealt with in post-processing). For landscape-type use I highly recommend it.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>For sports you would want either of the AF-S versions. I am not sure whether VR would be of all that much use here; VR can meddle with the timing of your exposures a bit. But the AF-S 80-200 is hard to find used and it's not available new.</p>

<p>Optically the VR has the best center image quality and the worst corners, the AF 80-200/2.8D N has good sharpness throughout the frame but it isn't quite as spectacular in the center as the 70-200. The AF 80-200/2.8D N also has far less vignetting, and it's somewhat lighter than the AF-S VR. The AF-S 80-200, which I have not used, seems to fall in the middle between the 70-200 and AF 80-200/2.8D N both in terms of center and corner quality (according to Nikon wide open MTF data), and it's the heaviest of the AF f/2.8 telezooms and somewhat thick as noted above.</p>

<p>Myself, I am waiting for a new version of either the 70-200/2.8, a 70-200 AF-S with f/4 max aperture, an AF-S version of the 180/2.8, whichever comes first will be my buy. ;-) In order for me to not wait for a new tele, I would have to save enough money and develop enough muscle to handle the 200/2, neither of which is likely!</p>

[dangin]

<p>if you're trying to save some $$$ and weight but still want a great long zoom lens? skip the nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 and go for the tamron 70-200mm f/2.8. it doesn't have VR but it does have the extra range, has VG IQ, is lightweight (for what it is), and is much less expensive than the nikon nikkor. </p>

[stephen_asprey2]

<p>I am seriously looking at the Tokina 50-135 2.8 ATX pro. Its 75-200 on my D300. All the 70/80-200 zooms seem to have issues of some sort or other. I have a cupboard full of Nikon's best primes at home...the new plastic lenses disappoint me.<br>

I'd love an 80-200 afs but its just so big. I've heard some sad stories about the 70-200 VR. I also still use my F4s and I won't buy a gelded lens on principal.</p>