Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II or Nikon Zoom Telephoto Zoom-Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8 ED AF-D Nikon AF-S

[brad_herman1]

<p ><strong>Hi;</strong></p>

<p ><strong>I just picked up a new Nikon Zoom Telephoto Zoom-Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8 ED AF-D for my Nikon D700. I know that the previous 70-200 f/2.8 ED was great on a DX body, but only 'fair' on an FX body.</strong></p>

<p ><strong> </strong></p>

<p ><strong>I use this range only once in a while, and the 80-200 got great reviews. I was unaware that the new 70-200 VR II came out, (which also gets great reviews, even on FX format).</strong></p>

<p ><strong> </strong></p>

<p ><strong>Perhaps the 70-200 VR II is a superior lens, but at more than 2x the price? Besides the VR technology, what is the difference? The 80-200 is also a "Pro 2.8 Lens".</strong></p>

<p ><strong> </strong></p>

<p ><strong></strong><strong>Any comments or suggestions? Is the 70-200 worth 2x the price? </strong></p>

<p ><strong> </strong></p>

<p ><strong>Thanks;</strong></p>

<p ><strong>Brad</strong></p>

<p ><strong> </strong></p>

[kevin_delson]

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Is the 70-200 worth 2x the price? </strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Heh-heh..some will say yes, some will say no.<br>

I am in the latter. 2X the price?..More than that I believe.</p>

<p>I currently use the final revised 80-200 AF-D on both the D-300 & D3.<br>

I do very little indoor shooting with this lens and my shutter speeds are usually well north of 1/320th, so VR for me in this FL range is not well justified.</p>

<p>One caveat: The 80-200 AF-D has some well documented evidence (myself included) that this lens is subject to some serious back focus issues from copy to copy; so you may have to try a few before you find one that is perfect. This seems to be a problem with digital as I rarely hear complaints when the lens is coupled to a film camera.</p>

<p>My only so-called negative comment is the obvious one we all complain about with this lens..It's freakin' heavy! LOL</p>

[wpahnelas]

<p>i use the 80-200/2.8 AF-D (not the AF-S version, and i'm not sure whether that's the one you mean or not) on both a D300 and D700, and i haven't felt it lacking so much that i wanted to make the jump to the 70-200/2.8. now that the revised version of the 70-200 is out, well, i still think i'll stick with the 80-200. i think it does a fine job, even though it lacks VR. my complaint with it is CA, especially shooting against a bright, hazy sky (birds in trees, for example). nikon told me that lenses with ED glass are immune to the issue, but that's not my experience. besides that one irritant, however, it's a fine lens.</p>

[benjaminm]

<p>I have the AFD80-200/2.8 two ring lens. It is an old lens but delivers decent IQ on my D700. I wanted to sell it (I could get 600EUR for it) and buy the new VRII model. I tested a sample in my local store. The VRII is very sharp and has delivers very nice colors and contrast. It is nice to have VR but I want to have a true 200mm lens also at MFD. The VRII is only a 135mm lens at MFD. So, I didn't sell my old lens. I'm waiting for the VRIII version. Both lenses are quite heavy, but the VRII model is heavier than the 80-200 model.</p>

[michael_alger]

<p>I sold the 80-200/2.8 AF-D to get the 70-200 VR II. It cured the NAS for several months. That alone was worth ist, hehe.<br>

But seriously: the new one has VR and a highly reputed image quality. My non-scientific tests suggest that it is terrific. My older one did not have VR, for what you see in it, and the sharpness was not so very amazing. Not that is wasn't good, but the better is enemy to the good, as the old saying goes....<br>

That may not help you, which could be the reason not to go for the new one. You will know, when you want it. Not much reason to need it though.</p>

<p> </p>

[anthony_valvo]

<p>I have 80-200 AFD two ring. When the 70-200MM VR lens can out, everyone rushed to sell these lenses. Not me. I did not need the VR and my 80-200 is one sharp lens. If fact, I'm amazed at how good it is. I use it with a D3, D300 and an F6. It always delivers. I'll never sell it.<br>

The lens is the best value on the market.</p>

<p>Anthony</p>

 

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>There is certainly a reason why Nikon discontinued the 80-200/2.8 AF-S lens but kept the AF-D version in the program - the AF-S version would certainly take away from the sales of the 70-200 VRI (and now VRII).<br>

I have the 80-200 two-ring AF-D version and see no reason to trade it for a 70-200/2.8; I use it only occasionally anyway. Prices of the AF-D version have crept up in the last two years or so - a couple of years back, the lens could be had for less than $700 new. Now the price for it new is close to what an excellent condition AF-S version costs used - making the latter a very attractive alternative.</p>

 

[arthuryeo]

<p>I think the key advantage are the additional ED elements in this new 70-200VR2. The peripheral resolution has also been improved.</p>

<p>Minor improvement also include the near silent VR and the shorter barrel.</p>

<p><a href="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4020/4441573643_2896565ef5_o.jpg"><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4020/4441573643_365ca2e2a9.jpg" alt="" /> </a></p>

[mightypir]

<p>it really depends on what you shoot and how you plan to use the lens. For me, VR was vital and therefore I prefer my VR1 lens over the 80-200s and was willing to pay the price. This was based on experience...I first tried out a 80-200AFS and then the VR1 and the VR really made the difference (this was in a theatre setting where I could not use a monopod). So you need to first define what you want the lens for. The AFS would be fine for outdoor sports.</p>

[greg_gelber]

<p>Personally I own a D90 and the Nikon 18-200 VR I lens. I absolutely love the range of this lens but not the 3.5/5.6 performance. I was inside a huge gymnastics hall last week with metal halide lights everywhere and was trying to get the freezing action of the kids jumping around. I had to jack the ISO up over 1000 and higher to get the shots and it just wasn't coming out right. For inside stuff like that, I'm looking at the Nikon 35mm 2.8 or the the nifty fifty.<br />For outdoor stuff which I love to shoot, I'm usually above the 135mm range getting as much bokeh as possible and again, the 18-200mm is too slow in low light in that range. It's weird that I'm justifing an 80mm-200mm lens when I already have that range but I guess it's what I have to do to get fast glass.<br />I don't mean to hijack this thread but if I could ask a question please. If I got the Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 ED AF, would I be upset that I don't have the 70mm starting point? I'm going to play with the 70-80mm range today after work and I suppose it's not that big of a deal but I thought I'd ask.</p>

[greg_gelber]

<p>What lens was that German Shepard shot taken with? Is that right out of the camera or has it been treated cause it looks like it has gone through HDR. If that's the sharpness and saturation you get with a fast glass lens, sign me up. It's also cool how you can see the DOF range from the grass to the wall. LOVE IT!! If they made an 18-200mm f/2.8, I'd put my family up for auction on Ebay:)</p>

<p> </p>