New 70-300 or second hand 80-200?

I have a D7200, and am choosing between a new 70-300 f4.5-5.6G IF ED VR, and a second hand 80-200 f2.8D (about three years old).

Both are around the same price (approx AUD800). I like the idea of the build quality on the 80-200 ('serious' metal and glass) but the 70-300 is newer technology and has VR.

I have no plans to move to FX (that said, both these lenses are FX). The lens I mainly use now is the 16-80 f2.8-4E DX, so I've been spoilt for image quality.

Keen to hear what people think.

I have the Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR. It's a terrific lens but has a couple of issues. First, it tends to be a little soft when zoomed all the way out to 300mm. Usually I zoom up to 280mm for better results. It also has some chromatic aberration that doesn't get completely removed in ACR (but that only happens once in a while). However, I still use mine and really like it. Haven't used the 80-200mm so can't tell you anything about it. Just keep in mind every lens will have some less than perfect issue so just weigh your options before making a decision.

I imagine the 80-200mm is heavier--so I prefer having VR. BUT if you are looking at the 80-200mm f/2.8 which has the advantage of being faster, then you can always use a monopod when necessary.

Here's a terrific video on the features of the 70-300mm lens.

Part of the decision should be how important the faster f/2.8 aperture of the 80-200 will be to you. In low light or in the case of wanting a very small depth of field, this could be an issue.

I've had a 70-300 VR since the first one came out, and it's a great zoom range and a pretty sharp lens. I've shot a good amount of sports and close in wildlife with that lens.

f2.8 does give you a brighter viewfinder... something else to be taken into account!

I've owned both and I'd take the 80-200. Hands down a much better lens if you can live without VR. I owned the non VR version of the 70-300 and sold it to buy the current FX model. To me, the older model was sharper. Both versions struggle a bit at 300mm. The 80-200 is built like a tank, has better glass and has the 2.8 constant aperture. Not only is it a great tele, it's an awesome portrait lens.

Good luck.