Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Lenses
Telephoto
Any opinions on Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 vs 70-300mm f/4-5.6 ED?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="TwistedThrottle" data-source="post: 751448" data-attributes="member: 46724"><p>Personal preference, but here is my take. I have the 80-200 F2.8 push pull that I use for outdoor portraits. I do not like using it for moving subjects and do not even consider it in low light or indoor without adding flash. The shutter speed needs to be so high to offset lack of VR, the ISO goes through the roof. It takes nice crisp photos with the caveat that its 30 years old and doesnt have the lens coatings the new lenses have. I also have the newer 70-300 AF-P that I use for all the areas I dont like using the 80-200 for, (everything but portraits). In an ideal world, every photographer would be issued a 70-200 F2.8 but in reality, compromises must be made. I like both of these lenses because those are the ones I have and I wouldnt get rid of either unless I am issued a 70-200 f2.8, and then sionara 80-200 but I would certainly keep the 70-300 even with the new 70-200 f2.8. The compromise with the 70-300 is slow glass (f5.6) and the compromise with the 80-200 is no VR. I love VR and typically rely on it with telephoto lenses and the VR in the 70-300 AF-P is phenomenal! The size and weight on the 70-300 is great for travel. The size and weight on the 80-200 is acceptable for portraits, actually lighter than any other 70-200 or 80-200 minus the 70-200 f4 but it is considered to me to be just a portrait lens. The screw drive is slower on my D7500 than my D800. It really whizzes on full frame but is no slouch on the crop. Still, I only use it for portraits and how fast do you need a lens to focus for portraits? Also, there is no comparison with focus speed between the 2 lenses. The AF-P is nearly instantaneous. I do not like using the 80-200 for astro, I have tried it and the push pull mechanics moved while the tracker moved. Not too bad if you are sticking at 200 (fully pulled in towards the camera) and maybe some gaff tape would take care of the problem. I love using the 70-300 AF-P for astro. Even though its slow glass, its faster than most telescopes and the weight makes it my favorite deep sky lens, albeit not as ideal as a tele prime, but once again, compromises. If I am traveling but can take 2 cameras, I start out with the 24-120 on the full frame and 70-300 on the crop. 24-450 is a pretty good stretch with just 2 lenses. Throw in an 85 f1.8 for portraits or 100mm macro and I am set for just about anything. I dont have a ton of lenses, but I do have quite a few and the 70-300 is probably my most used lens. Great for full frame and also crop unless you really need that fast glass scratch itched in which case, maybe a prime would be better. Hope this helps you figure out what is important to you.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="TwistedThrottle, post: 751448, member: 46724"] Personal preference, but here is my take. I have the 80-200 F2.8 push pull that I use for outdoor portraits. I do not like using it for moving subjects and do not even consider it in low light or indoor without adding flash. The shutter speed needs to be so high to offset lack of VR, the ISO goes through the roof. It takes nice crisp photos with the caveat that its 30 years old and doesnt have the lens coatings the new lenses have. I also have the newer 70-300 AF-P that I use for all the areas I dont like using the 80-200 for, (everything but portraits). In an ideal world, every photographer would be issued a 70-200 F2.8 but in reality, compromises must be made. I like both of these lenses because those are the ones I have and I wouldnt get rid of either unless I am issued a 70-200 f2.8, and then sionara 80-200 but I would certainly keep the 70-300 even with the new 70-200 f2.8. The compromise with the 70-300 is slow glass (f5.6) and the compromise with the 80-200 is no VR. I love VR and typically rely on it with telephoto lenses and the VR in the 70-300 AF-P is phenomenal! The size and weight on the 70-300 is great for travel. The size and weight on the 80-200 is acceptable for portraits, actually lighter than any other 70-200 or 80-200 minus the 70-200 f4 but it is considered to me to be just a portrait lens. The screw drive is slower on my D7500 than my D800. It really whizzes on full frame but is no slouch on the crop. Still, I only use it for portraits and how fast do you need a lens to focus for portraits? Also, there is no comparison with focus speed between the 2 lenses. The AF-P is nearly instantaneous. I do not like using the 80-200 for astro, I have tried it and the push pull mechanics moved while the tracker moved. Not too bad if you are sticking at 200 (fully pulled in towards the camera) and maybe some gaff tape would take care of the problem. I love using the 70-300 AF-P for astro. Even though its slow glass, its faster than most telescopes and the weight makes it my favorite deep sky lens, albeit not as ideal as a tele prime, but once again, compromises. If I am traveling but can take 2 cameras, I start out with the 24-120 on the full frame and 70-300 on the crop. 24-450 is a pretty good stretch with just 2 lenses. Throw in an 85 f1.8 for portraits or 100mm macro and I am set for just about anything. I dont have a ton of lenses, but I do have quite a few and the 70-300 is probably my most used lens. Great for full frame and also crop unless you really need that fast glass scratch itched in which case, maybe a prime would be better. Hope this helps you figure out what is important to you. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Lenses
Telephoto
Any opinions on Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 vs 70-300mm f/4-5.6 ED?
Top