70-200 f/2.8 VS 80-200 f/2.8

[Cowboybillybob1]

I was seriously looking at the 70-200 but came back to my senses. I am not a professional but I love taking good photo's
I could just not justify the cost. $2500.00!! Who was I trying to fool? Probably myself more than anyone.
After looking around I come across the 80-200 (as you can tell I am a noobie). After reading reviews and the specs.
I am blown away. This may actually be the better lens. If not better than certainly it's equal. No VR but it's all metal not plastic
and at way under half the price it seems like a no brainer.

Can I get some thoughts on this? Any Pro's out there that use at least one of these two outstanding lenses?

 

[gqtuazon]

Since I use and own the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VRII, I would highly recommend it instead of the 80-200mm f2.8. I would suggest the 70-200mm f4 VRIII instead as an alternate choice. These lenses are very sharp and are worth the premium price IMO.

 

[BackdoorArts]

I'm with Glenn here, but come at it from a different angle. Running with the assumption that you have written off the 70-200mm f2.8, and that you're looking at the 80-200mm f2.8 as your alternative, let me ask this question, "How often can you see yourself using that lens wide open?" More times than not I suspect that you won't be at maximum aperture out of need but more out of desire to get nice DoF for sports and whatnot, so shooting at f4, while slightly deeper, is likely possible due to the lighting conditions, and while it won't yield the same results it may just be "more than close enough". Any aperture smaller than f4 and your only difference between the 70-200mm f4 and it's expensive brother is in the quality of the glass, and from what I've seen in photos and in various scores, there's not so much there than you'll find yourself scratching your head and wondering why you went that way. It's about 30% more, but it has the VR that will buy you a couple clicks down on the shutter dial for those times when you might think that having f2.8 for the light is the better option, but now you're pumping ISO or shooting blurry instead of shooting 200mm at 1/60sec.

Someone else here (RickM or DaveW?) recently wrestled with this and got the 70-200mm f4. Maybe try and dig up their thread on it?

 

[Rick M]

I went with the Nikon F4 and did consider the 80-200 at one point. I decided the VR and size/weight was more important. The f4 IQ wise is rated just a hair below (or equal by some) to the 70-200 2.8 VRII and generally above everything else at f4. If you can do a hands on comparison at a shop, that helped me decide. I was also considering the new Tamron 2.8 VC, But the nikon f4 won me over. It really comes down to if you must have f2.8.

 

[Dave_W]

It was Mr. Rick who picked up the f/4 lens, but according to Nasim, the f/4 is very similar in specs as the f/2.8 but comes with a newly designed VR (which I believe is now the VRIII) and most importantly it retails at 1/2 the price of the f/2.8. Granted, the f/2.8 is built stronger and a larger aperture, the differences are very small. See HERE
​
As for the 80-200mm, I've heard some mixed reviews on this lens and unless it's crazy cheap, I'd avoid buying one.

 

[Cowboybillybob1]

Well I went against the general opinions here and purchased the Nikon 80-200 f/2.8. It was $1000 at B&H (Grey Market) which is the same as the USA except the warrantee is through B&H instead of Nikon. I live close to NYC so it made sense to me.
I have only used it about an hour but I am way impressed with it's performance. Quick AF, sharp, great contrast, colour is fantastic, no noticed vignetting yet,and sharp on the corners and edges.
The lack of VR is a minus so I bought an inexpensive Manfrotto monopod.
Just a few shots in my Living Room but by far the best telephoto I have ever used. The 2.8 is important to me.
I hope the joy lasts.

 

[jwstl]

Well I went against the general opinions here and purchased the Nikon 80-200 f/2.8. It was $1000 at B&H (Grey Market) which is the same as the USA except the warrantee is through B&H instead of Nikon. I live close to NYC so it made sense to me.
I have only used it about an hour but I am way impressed with it's performance. Quick AF, sharp, great contrast, colour is fantastic, no noticed vignetting yet,and sharp on the corners and edges.
The lack of VR is a minus so I bought an inexpensive Manfrotto monopod.
Just a few shots in my Living Room but by far the best telephoto I have ever used. The 2.8 is important to me.
I hope the joy lasts.

That was the first "pro" lens I ever purchased. And it's an excellent lens and a great value so I can't argue against that decision. I do find it odd that you bought grey market if it was the same price as the U.S. I like B&H but I value the manufacturer's warranty more. And if you live close to NYC then you live close to Nikon USA which is headquartered in Mellville on Long Island. But to each his own. I'm not a grey market person.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Cowboybillybob1]

That was the first "pro" lens I ever purchased. And it's an excellent lens and a great value so I can't argue against that decision. I do find it odd that you bought grey market if it was the same price as the U.S. I like B&H but I value the manufacturer's warranty more. And if you live close to NYC then you live close to Nikon USA which is headquartered in Mellville on Long Island. But to each his own. I'm not a grey market person.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

$

It was 100 bucks cheaper and they did not have the regular one in stock.
Given some of the stories I have heard about Nikons repair service I feel comfortable with B&H.
This is not my first Nikon Pro lens. I have a 17-35mm f/2.8. $1769.00. Nice lens to say the least.

 

[pedroj]

I have the 80-200m....I use it for shooting surfers & motoX plus it does a great portrait as well....A tripod is a realistic substitute for VR.

 

[SilanTra ZaiDi]

since this topic is about 80-200 f/2.8, i believe it also came to my sense once a while....70-200 is way to much for me even f/4... but looking at 80-200, there are many bargains lens i can get in Japan... i still got a few friend in JApan that travel back and fourth...
i remembered while i was in Japan, the guy next door bought a used 80-200 around $400. but this is a very old one with the push pull type... and the screw type zoom was a bit expensive ... so what is the different between the push pull old lens and the screw type...

thanks

 

[pedroj]

A new 80-200mm here in Aus $868.00 grey from Discount digital photographics

 

[NVSteve]

Okay, let me throw this question out there: which lens will give me the best IQ at 200mm and 2.8? I don't care about VR, as it will only be used for high shutter speeds (sports). While I love the the 70-200 f4, I really need the extra stop. A 300mm would be preferable, but a tad out of my price range since this will only be used a few times a year. I'm asking here because there doesn't seem to be any solid consensus when looking at the various review sites.

 

[pedroj]

Okay, let me throw this question out there: which lens will give me the best IQ at 200mm and 2.8? I don't care about VR, as it will only be used for high shutter speeds (sports). While I love the the 70-200 f4, I really need the extra stop. A 300mm would be preferable, but a tad out of my price range since this will only be used a few times a year. I'm asking here because there doesn't seem to be any solid consensus when looking at the various review sites.

The answers you get for this will vary depending on which lens we have....I'm happy with the images produced with my 80-200mm..I haven't used the 70-200mm...I also shoot surf/sports with my old 300mm AF IF ED F4 it or the newer AF-S could be an option if the sports are not indoors..For the extra length..

 

[czecht]

If you never used a great lens with VR like Nikon 70-200mm F2.8 VR you would surprise yourself how this lens is A MUST for sports photography.
Please read on the Internet about VR and how it works and what is the VR intended for. You can shoot up to 4 Fstops faster with VR on this Nikon lens!
Also, the shot without VR would be many times almost impossible, but this Nikon gets you there.
Don't forget the TELECONVERTERS made for this lens!!!
Just read at least what I've posted to couple other users here:
(I'm not asking you to buy mine, but the info is valid)
I'm selling my 70-200mm f2.8, VR, for $1299.00 because it is in MINT MINT condition and very little use; including is Nikon filter.
On eBay they go from just under 1k and some up to $1800+, depends on condition.
Some people purchased the 70-200mm f2.8, VRII and later went back to the 70-200mm f2.8 VR -please do your homework on this issue.
If you are interested, please email me : [email protected] (Lincoln, NE is my location for past 34 years).
Also, make sure that when you buy the lens that the aperture does not stick or lock !!!
Some people had their lens fixed and few were not fixed right the first time, if they had this problem.
My never gets stuck and it is also free of fungi, grease or dust!!! And everything is tight; focus/zoom ring is not loose when zooming or manual focus - like a new lens!
Make sure you get yours that does not have any issues mentioned above.
I've used it much less than I wanted to, so it is just a very expensive lens sitting in my bag. BUT, it is the best lens if you need a telephoto.
I have couple Sigma lenses - 12-24mm and 8.5mm fisheye lenses and I'm very happy with both of them, but the color is different than Nikon to Nikon lens.
I also have both teleconverters: MINT MINT - TC-14EII 1.4x #200287; and TC-20EII 2x #201375; made for 70-200 F2.8 VR lens! (Used only about 20 times if that many times total for both.)
I'll entertain to sell all three items for one price - make me an offer I can't refuse.
Also, I live in a dry climate and my lens was never used near water and ocean or dusty places like Arizona.
Lenses from ocean area or used in wet or dusty conditions affects the lens, in some instances ruin the lens!!! Most photographers unload the lenses before it becomes visible!!!
Please do not purchase a lens from users like that, the repair in many instances becomes so expensive, you would loose your original investment.
These are the details one must take into the decision making process, because if the lens is in used conditions - like I've mentioned above; or used a lot and or traveled a lots of miles, it will affect the quality and condition of your lens.
Please ask any questions.
Tony

 

[Jonas Grumby]

I also have both the 17-35mm f/2.8 and the 80-200mm f/2.8 and I have been happy with both of them. It's true though that it's better to have some kind of camera support (tripod, monopod, etc.) with the 80-200. I'm thinking about selling the 80-200 and getting the 80-400, mainly because 200 is not really that long for my longest lens, and I want the VR functionality. I'm also interested in the new 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED VR II as a mid-range zoom for people/portraits.

I have the "screw type" 80-200. I don't think I would like a push/pull lens. The difference is that with screw type, you rotate a ring on the barrel of the lens to zoom, and on the push/pull, you pull a ring toward you or push it away. You can see pictures of them both on ebay.

 

[singlerosa_RIP]

Okay, let me throw this question out there: which lens will give me the best IQ at 200mm and 2.8? I don't care about VR, as it will only be used for high shutter speeds (sports). While I love the the 70-200 f4, I really need the extra stop. A 300mm would be preferable, but a tad out of my price range since this will only be used a few times a year. I'm asking here because there doesn't seem to be any solid consensus when looking at the various review sites.

I've owned both. Had the 80-200 dual ring for several years. Own the 70-200 II now. At 200 & wide open, I don't know that there's much IQ difference.