image quality AFS 70-200 VRII versus AF 180 mm f2.8

[StefDevos]

<p>I mainly shoot portraits with my AF180 mm. I prefer it over my 2ring AF 80-200 mm f2.8 for its better IQ (although the latter is also a very nice and more versatile lens).<br>

I'm currently considering an upgrade for the AF 80-200 in the AFS 70-200 vrII.<br>

The advantages of the newest zoom compared to the older zoom are obvious; but what about a comparison with the AF 180 mm f 2.8 in terms of pure image quality (contrast, sharpness, color): would the new zoom be better in the 150-200 mm range?<br>

thx stef (D3-user)</p>

[anthony_valvo]

<p>Interesting question. If your shotting portraits mainly hand held, then the VR might actually get you a sharper image, even if the opitcs are not on par with the 180. However, the 70-200 is a big and heavy lens, so you will use it hand held less.<br>

I'd guess the optical quality is very close on these two lenses. If it were me, I would not upgrade. The 180 is a fine lens, for your work. Its light and small with great bokeh. As a D3 user, I doubt you need the VR, as that camera produces clean images even at higher ISOs.</p>

<p>Anthony</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>If you really need VR then certainly consider spending the big bucks to replace your already excellent 80-200, but don't upgrade thinking you can replace both the 80-200 and the 180. I've read one review that alluded to the possibility that the zoom could be as good as or better than the 180, but I'd have to judge that one for myself, and also consider the shear size of the new zoom compared to your 180.</p>

<p>For myself I'd be eyeing other $2500 USD, or less, lenses that I could be adding to my bag, like a used AF-I 300/2.8, used AF-S 300/2.8, AF-S 300/4, AF 135/2 DC. AF 85/1.4 etc...and if you are an AI and AIS junky like myself you can buy any Nikon lens for this amount except three or four extremely special lenses.</p>

[bjørn rørslett]

<p>The new 70-200 Mk.2 is almost indistinguishable from the 200/2 VR in the near range (the 200 VR is better for landscapes).</p>

[jyoungman]

<p>Hmm, sorry this is a bit offtopic now. John, you mention that you're an AI-S junkie. What do you use the AF-I 300/2.8 for? I ask because I'd assume that lenses of that length are primarily for sports or wildlife shooting, and both sports players and wildlife tend to move quickly. Doesn't that make the lens very hard to use since it's MF?</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>The 180/2.8 is reported to be a very fine lens. I don't have one, but I do have a 300/4 AFS which surpasses the image quality of my older 70-200 VR by a wide margin. The real issue is that the 180 is not AFS, not VR and in particular not a zoom lens - features that make the 70-200 VR of any vintage indispensible.</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>Now we are off topic! I use a 400/2.8 AIS and 200/2 AI on a Nikon D2X for motorsports and soccer, and in the past for swimming. I even use them on my antique full frame Kodak SLRn for sports too. I have just added an autofocus teleconverter, the Nikon TC-16A, which adds some effective autofocus capability to my system, though while dramatically changing my focal lengths. </p>

<p>I like shooting race cars and bikers head on which means choosing a spot on the track and prefocusing on it. I have discussed this with pros who use autofocus and in this situation most are still turning off the autofocus and using the prefocus system. The autofocus simply cannot keep up. I use the converter for panning and it is brilliant for maintaining focus on the vehicle as it goes by since the focus distance does not change much nor quickly. This provides many more keepers than in the past since each driver will tend to take a slightly different "line" as they go around the track and thus not neccesarily passing through my prefocus point.</p>

<p>With soccer I can still get excellent shots of my 16 year old son with manual focus but I have noticed with his increased speed that my number of keepers has quartered since he was 12! Here the TC-16A is very good but it does reduce the IQ of the 200/2 enough that I myself am thinking in terms of the "affordable" 300/4 AF-S, 300/4 AF and 300/2.8 AF or AF-I. I have had a manual focus 300/2.8 in the past and if I sold both the 400/2.8 and 200/2 I could get a 300/2.8 AF-S but once you have experienced the IQ and effectiveness of any 400/2.8 or 200/2 there simply is no going back, even for autofocus capability!</p>

<p>Of course what I really need for soccer is a 200-400 VR or 50-300/4.5 AIS with the TC-16A, but both are not options at the moment and from what I read the 80-400 autofocus is just not good enough and neither is the Sigma 120-300/2.8.</p>

<p>I know my desire for high image quality may be a little "un-hinged" and that some sort of 100-300 AF lens shot at ISO 6400 on an affordable D90 would be much more relaxing and just fine for 5x7s, ...but I just can't get past my IQ phobias! </p>

[mihai_ciuca]

<p>Hi Stef,<br>

If you mainly shoot portraits there is no reason to renounce at 180 f2.8 in favour of the new 70-200mm 2.8<br>

I have the three f2.8 Nikon zooms (14-24; 24-70 and 70-200) but I found that I get better results and I have a deeper pleasure to shoot mostly with some finest primes like 50 f1.2 AI, 85 f1.4 AFD and 180 f2.8 AFD. I want to add an 135 f2 DC and a good wide / ultrawide prime and that's the ideal kit. The three lenses I listed (50 f1.2; 85 f1.4 and 180 f2) I use mostly for portraits and really the f2.8 zooms cann't provide the same results, even they are very good as well. <br>

One important advantage (for me at least) is the size and the weight of 180... I get tired very soon when I hand held my D700 + 70-200... but I can handle for hours the same camera with 180...</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>The way the question was asked I refrained from getting a little off topic and denouncing VR like I usually do, but since we got way off topic anyway I'd like to add to my first response. </p>

<p>I started by saying "If you really need VR...", and assumed that you already new that you needed it. VR is not the be all and end all that many profess. It is very specifically made for handholding cameras for non-moving subjects in extremely low light. Before you start, anyone who practices panning can get just as good results without VR. Many who do prefess the vast strengths of VR have never attempted to photograph their images any other way, and don't realize when the VR is not actually helping them. They get great shots at f8 and 1/1000s (which pretty much any lens can do) and assume that it's because of the VR aspect of their lens.</p>

<p>I can see the advantages of VR for informal portraits but I can also see the advantages of f1.2, f1.4 and f2 for portraits. I don't care about the arguments of extremely limited depth of field, in most portrait distances this only intensifies the separation between subject and background/foreground and the bokeh of the huge aperture prime lenses is vastly superior to any zoom. </p>

<p>I have done portraits with lenses from 50mm to 400mm and so I can understand your desire to use a 180mm or 200mm or 80-200 or 70-200 for portraits but you may be better served by an 85/1.4 or 135/2 to go alongside your 180 and 80-200. I had to give up my Zeiss 84/1.4 when I switched from Canon to Nikon and I have been crying ever since. You see I paid $200 for that lens and the Nikon equivalent is at least $500, but I just don't use the focal length enough to justify that "at the moment". </p>

[StefDevos]

<p>thx for your answers so far; ps: I do also have AiS 85 1.4 and 105 1.8.<br>

The original question was really meant for getting advice in the 150-200 range (where the 80-200 is at its weakest and the 180 is indeed a superb performer).<br>

stef</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>I would guess, from what I've seen from the Mk II that the 180/2.8's advantages over the 70-200 Mk II are its size and weight rather than optical quality, which is high but it has its flaws also. I am an avid user of the 180/2.8D but for the past six-seven months I've been using the 200/2 VR in preference as it is easier to obtain accurate focus at f/2.8 with the 200/2 rather than the 180. By f/3.5 the 180/2.8 is of spectacular quality and the focusing accuracy issues wide open are unnoticeable in my experience. At f/2.8 the 200/2 has no visible CA while the 180 has some in the out of focus areas. But when traveling or photographing in nature, I use the 180 due to its lower weight and also in many cases the small size and inconspicious character of the 180 make it my favoured choice for people photography when I'm not shooting at f/2.8. For indoor photography with stage lights or in lecture halls I use the 200/2 and it's fabulous but staying healthy while using it I need to support my elbows on something, or use a monopod. If I purely hand-hold it without additional support for a few hours, my back will be killing me for the next week. The 180 is like a feather in comparison.</p>

<p>I am planning on purchasing the 70-200 Mk II when the price is reduced to a manageable level. Currently I think it is too high. I would never sell the 180 in trade for anything but another 180 with AF-S (hoping it is in Nikon's future). It's indispensable when shooting hand-held for longer periods of time - I found even the 70-200 (Mk I) to cause back problems if hand-held day to day. On monopod things are different though. One can not dispute the effectiveness of 70-200/2.8 type lenses in "getting the shot" but still I tend to prefer the compactness of tele primes relative to given focal length and aperture. The 70-200 is quite obtrusive and heavy 70/2.8 if you use it at that FL. But versatile and powerful as a whole.</p>

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

<p>I'd love an AF-S update of the 180/2.8, but that's unlikely.</p>

[roland_vink]

<p><em>I'd love an AF-S update of the 180/2.8, but that's unlikely.</em></p>

<p>The AF 180/2.8 is the oldest of the short telephoto primes and has a primitive MF/AF switch which also requires switching the camera to MF. I suggest this should be the first to be updated, most likely with AFS and VR, but who knows?</p>