80-200 or 55-200VR

[ted_raper1]

<p>Lens question - I need a cheap telephoto for very occasional use that is more compact and lighter than the 80-200 2.8 I already have. I can either get the old "plastic fantastic" 80-200 4.5/5.6, or a new 55-200 VR. Any experience here with which of these two has better IQ? I do like the idea of VR but it will cost me twice as much, and I stress that it will be for VERY occasional use. I've heard good things about the old 80-200 (I'm using a D200), but in general I'm hesitant about buying such an old lens.</p>

[woolly1]

<p>Have you considered a Nkkor70-210/4-5.6? All metal sharp and about $175</p>

[woolly1]

<p><a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/TUvNKyHxAxXur2Xmk-52Tw?authkey=Gv1sRgCOfTp-u_wdOCPA&feat=directlink">http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/TUvNKyHxAxXur2Xmk-52Tw?authkey=Gv1sRgCOfTp-u_wdOCPA&feat=directlink</a></p>

[trevans]

<p>You can get used 55-200 VRs for less than $175 easily. I have one and I love it.</p>

[joe_a2]

<p>Ted.... Have you considered the non-VR 55-200? You can get one for $100 or so on theBay. Quite a bit less than the $175 or so (great minds think alike, Tim) you'll pay for a clean used VR version if you're looking for an inexpensive route. Same image quality, and the non-VR is even lighter and smaller than the VR!</p>

<p>Clive.... The 70-210's aren't exactly compact and lightweight, but the D version (with it's taller AF gearing) is a helluva lens. I just got the feeling the OP is looking for the full opposite of his 80-200 2.8.</p>

[trevans]

<p>Joe - I'd say the difference in the two is worth paying for VR. It can't be that much difference now. I bought my D40 kit with the 55-200 Non-VR and, after using it a few days, traded it in on the VR. Best $50 I've spent on my camera kit, no question. At the time I was not good enough to determine whether the optical quality was any different, but as the VR is newer I suspect it's also incrementally better in the optics.</p>

[joe_a2]

<p>Tim.... I agree that the VR is worth the difference. Just tossing up an option if size and/or price are the ultimate concerns.</p>

[trevans]

<p>Fair enough.</p>

<p>Ted, it just depends on what it's worth to you. What do you mean by very occasional? And what is your budget like? And what might you be taking pictures of?</p>

[ramon_v__california_]

<p>the 55-200mm VR has definitely better image quality than the old 80-200mm (i have both). it also balances well in my D200. when i go on a light shoot for wedding receptions, especially outdoors, the 55-200mm VR is in my second camera. still lightweight compaired to the 80-200mm f/2.8.</p>

<p>i got mine for $200 in mint condition. for $100+ more, it's worth getting it over the 80-200mm you are considering, even for the very occasional use.</p>

[shuo_zhao]

<p>For a 200mm lens, especially one that's not all that fast at f/5.6, VR is very helpful. The new 55-200 VR features a more modern optical design with an ED glass element. I think the 55-200 VR would be better choice of the two lenses mentioned. </p>

[peter]

<p>Here is a further alternative to consider............. I have kept my older 70-210 f4-5.6 from the mid 1990s. Its a very well built lens and optically performs on par with many of Nikons "upper middle" / prosumer group of lenses of that era (i.e really very good) but is of course not up to the 80-200mm standard.</p>

<p>Perhaps its biggest flaw is that its quite slow to focus by todays standards although I have noticed that its considerably faster on my D200 than I recall it to have been on my F801s film camera. Mine is the earlier version but the later D version is faster due to the gearing ratio. Be aware (if you are considering this option) that the first and second series 80-200mm is even slower to focus than the above lens and is certianly much slower than the current 80-200mm - the first two ring version is the first version to have half way decent focusing speed.</p>

<p>I do not hesitate to buy lenses of this era if they look well maintained and lightly used. With the lens I mentioned it came fromt he same designers who gave us the 35-70mm f2.8 which is still highly regarded and sought after. And it has similar build. Just research them first to find out their advantages and disadvantages. In general these lenses are more robustly built (although maybe not "better built" depending on your view about the extensive use of polycarbonates in lenses) than todays crop - they have more metal in them and that reflects in their weight.</p>

<p>For occasional use the 70-210mm may be an option worth considering as you can often find them in virtually mint condition on ebay for not much over $100. I have kept mine for much the same reason as you advance - occasional use when I do not wish to haul out the "big guns." And besides I object to selling an otherwise very sound lens for this tiny amount of money. I may as well keep it for when I need a light option. For this price you cna keep your 80-200mm and have a smaller / lighter option for travel etc.</p>

[akira]

<p>If your "VERY occasional" would be very close to "rare", I wouldn't bother buying any lesser lens. ;)</p>

<p>VR won't help you to reduce motion blurr of the subject. Also, I would think that the loss of 2 stops of speed (at the longer end) is a significant disadvantage even considering the merit of lighter weight (unless you climb mountains), especially for longer lenses.</p>

<p>I would save the money for better purposes.</p>