Nikon 70-200 f2.8

S

Sudipto

Senior Member
I have Nikon 80-400 f/4.5 to f/5.6 g lens with ed and vr ii. I mostly use it for bird photography. The heading is wrong it should be 70-200 instead of 80-200

I take landscape and architecture photography along with some travel and portrait.

There are a lot of good words I read on Internet about the new 70-200 f/2.8 lens. Some says it is an essential lens. As I also use 24-120 kit lens I felt the 70-200 is overlapping so did not spent on it.

Need suggestion is 70-200really makes difference over 80-400 for general travel cum landscape and portrait photography? Is this useful to have it when I already have 80-400? If yes then under what circumstances?

By the way I am using D750 and D500 bodies.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
jc32750

jc32750

Senior Member
Re: Nikon 80-200 f2.8

If it was me I’d go for one of the other f2.8 lenses for now


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
hark

hark

Administrator
Staff member
Super Mod
Re: Nikon 80-200 f2.8

I don't have either of these lenses although I do have the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VRii. Comparing the 2 lenses you mentioned, both are very similar in weight and length. So the real difference is in the glass. The 70-200mm is much faster and has a consistent aperture of f/2.8 whereas your 80-400mm has a variable aperture (the maximum aperture changes when it is zoomed out).

What that means is you would have a shallower depth of field with the 70-200mm. The extra speed it offers is also helpful. If you take a lot of portraits or do lots of low light photography, an f/2.8 lens is fantastic. It doesn't look like you do much, if any, sports so whether or not you'd benefit enough from this lens is questionable. Tamron makes a 70-200mm f/2.8 that gets great reviews. If you really want a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens, you should consider that one.
 
W

Whiskeyman

Senior Member
Re: Nikon 80-200 f2.8

The Nikon lens lineup includes both 80-200 mm and 70-200 mm lenses. I don't have any experience with the 80-400 mm, but do have experience with both the 80-200 and 70-200 lenses. (Used to own the 80-200 mm and now own the 70-200 AF-S VR II lens.) The 70-200 mm lens is better than the 80-200 mm was for me, and from what I hear, the newest 70-200 mm E lens is even better. Whether having it over your 80-400mm is better or not, I can't answer. That answer also depends upon which version of the 80-400 you now own and use.

WM
 
S

singlerosa_RIP

Senior Member
Re: Nikon 80-200 f2.8

Everyone should have a fast 70-200. I have the VRII and previously had the 80-200 dual ring. While my 24-70 gets the most use, the 70-200 is my favorite. The new version is probably awesome.
 
P

pendennis

Senior Member
Re: Nikon 80-200 f2.8

I owned the Nikkor 80-200 f2.8 AF for quite a long time, but I traded it for a 70-200 f4 VR. There are more occasions where the weight is a consideration, and not the lens speed. That stated, I found a great deal on a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 DG HSM, and it's become a very valuable addition when I "need the speed". I also have the Nikkor 80-400, and the 200-500 f5.6. For various reasons, they're all indispensable when they're needed for a particular setting.

The newer Nikkor 70-200 f2.8 VR-II is a fairly expensive option, but you may find the "VR-I" version for less money, and it's certainly a fine lens.
 
S

Sudipto

Senior Member
Nikon 80-200 f2.8

jc32750 said:
How do you like the 200-500 compared to the 80-400?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

80-400 is undoubtedly superior. My success rate is significantly higher than my Co photographers in bird photography. Moreover it is easier to carry than 200-500.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
S

spb_stan

Senior Member
The newest 70-200 is superior in optics so has great usefulness for everything from architecture detail, event, portraiture, close in wildlife and is small enough to use as a walking around lens. I have a number of good portrait style lenses, including 2 different 85mm(1.4 and 1.8), 135 2.0 DC, 50 1.4 Sigma, and 70-200 2.8 and fully 1/2 of my portraits and candids are with the 70-200. For travel, the 70-200 f/4 is lighter a lot lower cost and has excellent optics. As a general purpose lens it is great. But the 2.8e is even better.
For less than 1/2 the price the newest Tamron-SP-70-200mm-F28-Di-VC-USD-G2 is getting very good reviews.
 
S

singlerosa_RIP

Senior Member
Buy this lens. You'll have it forever. Easy for me to say. I first stumbled into a super deal on the 80-200 2.8 dual ring and then sold it when I ran into an equally great deal on a pristine 70-200m VRII. Money aside, the 70-200 is fantastic and if you can, you should own one. Great on DX and FX bodies.
 
P

pendennis

Senior Member
Re: Nikon 80-200 f2.8

jc32750 said:
How do you like the 200-500 compared to the 80-400?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Horses for different courses. The 80-400 gives a lot of range in that it has 80-200, but the 200-500 has it at the long end. I use the 500mm setting far more often than 80-200 on the 80-400.

I like the fact that the 80-400 will work with my F6, because it's a "G" and compatible. The 200-500 has the electromagnetic aperture, and isn't compatible with any of my film cameras; a small dislike, though.

The optical performance is weighed in favor of the 200-500, just based on my usage and observations. I have no empirical data to support this, though.
 
S

spb_stan

Senior Member
Re: Nikon 80-200 f2.8

Sudipto said:
I am facing the same challenges. That’s why gathering support


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Try "Honey I really need to this lens to capture your unique beauty that only the finest lenses can" You can mention that while presenting her with her favorite flowers.

I didn't have a girlfriend when I got my 70-200 2.8 but one of the first girls I shot in an event liked the photos so much we started dating and have been together ever since. Flattering portraits are great tools to get what you want;>)
 
Top