Which One? Nikkor 80-200 or 70-200VR 2.8

[silversixx]

Like the title states, which one should I get? The price difference is absolutely ridiculous if the only difference is 10mm and vibration reduction. Am I missing something else? The price for the non VR is around a grand with a warranty. the VR is about 2g with a warranty. Im an aspiring professional photographer, so I need professional glass. I didn't know if their could be a difference in the glass in the lenses as well.

Thanks everyone

Jonathan

[dmora]

I hear the 80-200 is very reputable and IQ is spot on. You're paying for the VR i believe.

[ptrd]

I dunno but I'm assuming the 70-200 has some better glass inside.

They aren't charging $1000 for VR. Isn't the 70-200 constant aperature while the 80-200 isn't?

From what I've seen/read, if you need it, you'll find a way to get it.

[silversixx]

the 80-200 fixed just like the 70-200

[MRCPix]

what are you going to use it for? I use my 80-200 for sports and portraits and love it.

[PhotoByLeal]

I LOVE MY 70-200 2.8 VR!
The VR will let u go down to 1/30 and may be 1/15 of second hand held!

good luck!

[RightAngle]

Correct me if I'm wrong but the 70-200 VR has AF stop buttons on it as well. Overall the build quality of the VR is much better than the 80-200. If you don't do anything that needs VR or a lens built like a tank then go with the 80-200.

Personally I would expect you will end up at some point upgrading so you might as well do it right the first time.

[HFMarshburnJR]

Originally Posted by RightAngle

Correct me if I'm wrong but the 70-200 VR has AF stop buttons on it as well. Overall the build quality of the VR is much better than the 80-200. If you don't do anything that needs VR or a lens built like a tank then go with the 80-200.

Personally I would expect you will end up at some point upgrading so you might as well do it right the first time.

I have to respectfully disagree with the comments about the build quality. My 80-200 is built like a tank. It is pro glass and built the same way. The biggest differences are the lack of VR and the fact that it is screw driven (AF-D vs. AF-S). It has a AF limit switch built in to help increase the speed of fcusing by limiting the hunting.

I shoot this with my tripod or monopod most of the time, so VR is no big deal to me. It is great for sports or portraits.

I may upgrade at some point in the future...when this one wears out...or when the extra $1000 drops off the truck in front of me. Personally, I don't think going with this lens is doing it "wrong".

YMMV, of course.

[JSE]

I have owner both and optically, they are extremely close. The 70-200 is a tad bit better per MTF charts but I would be a paycheck nobody could tell the diffence in side by side photos.

Build quality on the 70-200 might be a bit better if at all but the 80-200 is still a pro grade lens with outstanding build quality.

To me, it comes down the VR. if you plan on using the lens handheld or in low light, get the VR lens. If not, save some money and get the 80-200mm. I mainly only used the lens for sports in daylight with my friends kids so I got rid of the 70-200 and kept the 80-200. The VR did not really make a difference to me.

[90 5.0]

Originally Posted by HFMarshburnJR

I have to respectfully disagree with the comments about the build quality. My 80-200 is built like a tank. It is pro glass and built the same way. The biggest differences are the lack of VR and the fact that it is screw driven (AF-D vs. AF-S). It has a AF limit switch built in to help increase the speed of fcusing by limiting the hunting.

I shoot this with my tripod or monopod most of the time, so VR is no big deal to me. It is great for sports or portraits.

I may upgrade at some point in the future...when this one wears out...or when the extra $1000 drops off the truck in front of me. Personally, I don't think going with this lens is doing it "wrong".

YMMV, of course.

There is an af-s 80-200 2.8 also.

Silver, you didn't say what you wanted to use the lens for or if you were shooting dx or fx.

As far as the fx shooters go most beleive the 80-200 versions to be better for edge to edge sharpness and there is no vignetting on fx with the 80-200's. The 70-200vr version one slightly vignettes on ff, this is the reason for the new version. Nikon has fixed that issue.

If you either shoot fx and/or require slightly better edge to edge sharpness(large prints landscapes). Then the 80-200's or the newest version 70-200vr are the ones to get.

For the cost savings compared to the new version vr, you could pick up both the 80-200 af-s and the 28-70 2.8 or the 17-35 2.8(17-55 2.8 if shooting dx is also a viable option) used if vr isn't a high priority.


You could always rent both and way the differences yourself.

[DougC]

Originally Posted by HFMarshburnJR

I have to respectfully disagree with the comments about the build quality. My 80-200 is built like a tank. It is pro glass and built the same way. The biggest differences are the lack of VR and the fact that it is screw driven (AF-D vs. AF-S). It has a AF limit switch built in to help increase the speed of fcusing by limiting the hunting.

I shoot this with my tripod or monopod most of the time, so VR is no big deal to me. It is great for sports or portraits.

I may upgrade at some point in the future...when this one wears out...or when the extra $1000 drops off the truck in front of me. Personally, I don't think going with this lens is doing it "wrong".

YMMV, of course.

Ditto! I'll add that if you think there is an IQ difference between the two, you're dreaming.

[jeffkohn]

The 70-200vr is pretty poor on full-frame as far as corner sharpness and light falloff go. For some types of shooting this doesn't matter, but I stopped using it for landscapes because I find the 70-300 to be more consistent stopped down (not as good as the 70-200 in the center, but a little better in the corners). I expect the new 70-200vr-II will address these issues, but it's also going to be even more expensive.

after the price increase a year or so agao, the original 70-200vr is substantially over-priced IMHO, especially considering its full-frame performance. I paid about $1350 for mine back in the day, but there's no way I can recommend it at $2K. Either save some money and get the 80-200, or spring for the new 70-200vr-II. If you can live without a warranty, the price for used 70-200vr's should be getting pretty attractive as people upgrade to the new version.

[garykohs]

About 2.5 years ago I was shooting a baseball game with my D200 and Sigma 70-200 HSM and standing beside a Chronicle photographer with a D200 and 70-200 VR. I asked him how he liked the VR and he said he liked it very much but had he to do it over again he would save the money and get the 80-200. His opinion was that the 80-200 was just as good if you don't need the VR and he didn't since he just used it for sports.

My personal experience with the 80-200 is very good. [I have two friends with the lens so I've shot with it some.] It isn't quite as fast focusing as my Sigma was. The Sigma was equally sharp and I chose it because it works very well with the dedicated Sigma HSM TCs (the VR lens shares this advantage over the 80-200). I never thought the colors were as good, however, as my friends 80-200s.

I don't know if that helps you make a decision but it's my perspective on your decision.

[Gildersleeve]

I don't think anyone has mentioned the three Nikon tele-converters, 1.4x, 1.7x & 2x, that are usuable with this lens. I my not own a 200-400mm lens right now, but if I add the 2x to my 70-200 VR, I'm there.

[silversixx]

Thanks for all of the great information and suggestions everyone!
I think that Im going to putt the trigger on the 80-200 soon. No matter what It will be better than the 18-200 3.5-5.6 VR lens I have now...
Oh Im going to be using is with a D300, I planned on getting a FX camera in the semi near future ( in year or two) after I finish school.

Thanks again everyone!
Jonathan