Any opinions on Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 vs 70-300mm f/4-5.6 ED?

BF Hammer

Senior Member
My current lens situation is relevant here. Have both a D750 FX and D7000 DX body. My other telephoto lenses are the 24-120mm f/4 kit lens from the D750, Tamron 18-270mm Dx format (PZD version), Sigma 150-600mm C, and one of the subjects of my question: Nikon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 ED.

I've had the 70-300mm for a long time. I have not shot photos with it pretty much since getting the Sigma 150-600mm in 2018. While it was my longest reach lens for many years, I never was really happy with the slow screw-drive autofocus, soft images, and prominent coma and fringing. Optically the Sigma just outperforms in all ways. But... size is an issue sometimes.

In FX format, I have a small gap between 120mm and 150mm. Nothing really, but it would be nice to have a smaller size and lighter lens to cover a range I would likely want to handhold at 70-200mm. Mainly for wildlife, but could be applied for astrophotography too. I don't see many options here for under $2K. I would love to see a constant f/4 option in this range as I've been pleased with the 24-120mm lens. But nobody offers that. 70-200mm f/2.8 VR just not going to happen in my budget. But the older design 80-200mm f/2.8 lens is still out there. Affordable enough to me, does anybody think it would be worth trading in a 70-300mm and replacing it with the 80-200mm? Is the lack of VR going to drive me nuts? (none on the current 70-300mm as is).
 

hark

Administrator
Staff member
Super Mod
Contributor
I would love to see a constant f/4 option in this range as I've been pleased with the 24-120mm lens. But nobody offers that. 70-200mm f/2.8 VR just not going to happen in my budget.

What about the Nikon 70-200mm f/4 VR? You can add the optional tripod collar which helps balance the weight. It isn't nearly as heavy as the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/897230-REG/Nikon_2202_NIKKOR_AF_S_70_200mm_f_4_0G.html

Nikon_2202_NIKKOR_AF_S_70_200mm_f_4_0G_1351086000_897230.jpg
 

desmobob

Senior Member
I replaced my 70-300 with the really old, screw-drive, push-pull 80-200 f/2.8, and I'm very happy with it. I guess it might depend on your particular needs as far as the push-pull vs. twist zoom and lack of VR goes. All I know is that the 80-200 can shoot wide open with very satisfying results... it reminds me of the 180mm f/2.8; it makes a very nice image.
 

Bikerbrent

Senior Member
I have the 80-200 f/2.8 with twist zoom left over from my film days. This is one great lens! Can't speak for push-pull version. There are times I miss the VR, but having done photography for many years without VR, it is NOT an issue for me.
 

TwistedThrottle

Senior Member
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.
 

BF Hammer

Senior Member
What about the Nikon 70-200mm f/4 VR? You can add the optional tripod collar which helps balance the weight. It isn't nearly as heavy as the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/897230-REG/Nikon_2202_NIKKOR_AF_S_70_200mm_f_4_0G.html

Hark, I normally initiate my research on imaging-resource.com and I cannot explain why I did not see that lens there until you brought it up! Maybe I mistook it for a DX lens or something. Looks like it tested soft at 200mm on a D800 sensor. But my D750 is not in the same resolution class there. More decisions now...

I see $810 at KEH including a tripod mount. Think they will give me $25 or better of trade-in?
 
Last edited:

BF Hammer

Senior Member
I replaced my 70-300 with the really old, screw-drive, push-pull 80-200 f/2.8, and I'm very happy with it. I guess it might depend on your particular needs as far as the push-pull vs. twist zoom and lack of VR goes. All I know is that the 80-200 can shoot wide open with very satisfying results... it reminds me of the 180mm f/2.8; it makes a very nice image.

Ha! I have a Tokina push-pull lens that came with the Minolta XD-11 I bought at a sheriff auction 25 years ago. Have not really used one otherwise except the Tamron 18-270 zoom friction is so crappy that you can push-pull it accidentally. Point it down, it will zoom itself out to 270mm hands-free!
 

Whiskeyman

Senior Member
I once had the Nikon 80-200 lens. Your cameras are much better than my copy of that lens was. Were I you, I would not trade in on the 80-200.

WM
 

hark

Administrator
Staff member
Super Mod
Contributor
Hark, I normally initiate my research on imaging-resource.com and I cannot explain why I did not see that lens there until you brought it up! Maybe I mistook it for a DX lens or something. Looks like it tested soft at 200mm on a D800 sensor. But my D750 is not in the same resolution class there. More decisions now...

I see $810 at KEH including a tripod mount. Think they will give me $25 or better of trade-in?

I have this lens, BF Hammer. It is quite sharp. Not only were the first and last images taken at 200mm, all of these images were heavily cropped from the originals - and all taken with a D750. As with any lens, there are going to be slight differences in how one performs vs. an identical copy. Mine was purchased as preowned. I also have the optional Nikon tripod foot/collar with a Black Rapid strap attached to the foot.

I also have a Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR lens (AF-S version). Personally I prefer the IQ of the Nikon 70-200mm f/4 VR. The weight is a little heavier and is larger than the 70-300mm lens but no where near as heavy as the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR.

EDITING to directly add the photos to this post rather than to redirect with a link to the original post.

311143d1556969493-hark-2019-a-_dsc0063-low-res.jpg


311144d1556969497-hark-2019-a-_dsc0070-low-res.jpg


311145d1556969499-hark-2019-a-_dsc0073-low-res.jpg


311146d1556969500-hark-2019-a-_dsc0077-low-res.jpg
 
Last edited:

nikonpup

Senior Member










Look at a Nikon AF-S 70-300mm 4.5-5.6G ED. Can be used for both your cameras. 450mm on your D7000.
I like the weight for carry around, less than my 200mm and less awkward than my 600mm. Used prices are very good <$300.00 (B&H).
 

Danno

Senior Member
My current lens situation is relevant here. Have both a D750 FX and D7000 DX body. My other telephoto lenses are the 24-120mm f/4 kit lens from the D750, Tamron 18-270mm Dx format (PZD version), Sigma 150-600mm C, and one of the subjects of my question: Nikon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 ED.

I've had the 70-300mm for a long time. I have not shot photos with it pretty much since getting the Sigma 150-600mm in 2018. While it was my longest reach lens for many years, I never was really happy with the slow screw-drive autofocus, soft images, and prominent coma and fringing. Optically the Sigma just outperforms in all ways. But... size is an issue sometimes.

In FX format, I have a small gap between 120mm and 150mm. Nothing really, but it would be nice to have a smaller size and lighter lens to cover a range I would likely want to handhold at 70-200mm. Mainly for wildlife, but could be applied for astrophotography too. I don't see many options here for under $2K. I would love to see a constant f/4 option in this range as I've been pleased with the 24-120mm lens. But nobody offers that. 70-200mm f/2.8 VR just not going to happen in my budget. But the older design 80-200mm f/2.8 lens is still out there. Affordable enough to me, does anybody think it would be worth trading in a 70-300mm and replacing it with the 80-200mm? Is the lack of VR going to drive me nuts? (none on the current 70-300mm as is).

I may have missed this in some other comments... But have you looked at the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 G2. I have one, and I really love it. I have to admit that I have not been using much lately. I have been playing with the S Lenses for my Z 6. But I will tell you it is a good lens, and you can get it in 1000 dollar range. I would add the Tap console. It shared custody of my D700 with my Tamron 28-75 f2.8.

Just something to think about.
 

drummerJ99

Senior Member
I had a 80-200 zoom ring version that I bought off eBay. It wasn’t bad and was my go to lens until I dropped and damaged it. I felt it was a little slow to autofocus for covering high school sports for local newspaper.

After dropping it I’ve since updated to the Tamron 70-200 2.8 G2 last month. So far loving it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

desmobob

Senior Member
Ha! I have a Tokina push-pull lens that came with the Minolta XD-11 I bought at a sheriff auction 25 years ago. Have not really used one otherwise except the Tamron 18-270 zoom friction is so crappy that you can push-pull it accidentally. Point it down, it will zoom itself out to 270mm hands-free!

Ha? Are you suggesting the Nikkor has the same sloppy zoom function as the Tamron you had? That's not the case...
 

BF Hammer

Senior Member
Hi and thank-you for the responses so far everybody. I spent a good deal of last night taking 1 astro-image and was away from home not reading this thread. I have some good options suggested that I did not find on my own and I will start looking at those. That is why I started the thead, I look for one answer and get pointed another way entirely.

So I was taking that image last night with my Tamron 90mm f/2.8 lens, and it reinforced the idea to me that there is value in going with an f/2.8 telephoto zoom to compliment the Sigma lens where I'm working more with f/5.6 to f/6.3 at the long end. At least with the astrophotography work there is. So now I am trying to get some professional reviews of that Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 to form an opinion on.
 

hark

Administrator
Staff member
Super Mod
Contributor
If my memory is right, Tamron's "Di" means the same as Nikon's "DX". I am looking at just full-frame lenses.

I am not familiar with Tamron lingo. ;) But looking at the specs, it is listed as being Full Frame. :)
 

mikeee

Senior Member

BF Hammer

Senior Member
Looking at my local camera shop's website I see a recently-listed used Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G available. Tamron has the 70-200mm f/2.8 G2 with a $100 instant rebate, so I will have an opportunity to try both on my camera if I get there after work tomorrow. If nobody snaps up that Nikon lens before I can get there.
 
Top