+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 22
  1. #1
    Senior Member
    BF Hammer's Avatar

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

    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).


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



  2. #2
    Staff
    Super Mod
    hark's Avatar

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

    Any opinions on Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 vs 70-300mm f/4-5.6 ED?
    Quote Originally Posted by BF Hammer View Post
    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/produ...mm_f_4_0G.html

    Any opinions on Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 vs 70-300mm f/4-5.6 ED?-nikon_2202_nikkor_af_s_70_200mm_f_4_0g_1351086000_897230.jpg
    Cindy - D750, D500, D7200
    My 2021 Thread

    Where the Spirit does not work with the hand, there is no art
    -- Leonardo da Vinci



  3. #3
    Senior Member
    desmobob's Avatar

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

    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.
    __________________________
    D750, D200, F4s (x2) FG, F3HP, F3, F2S

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Bikerbrent's Avatar

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

    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.
    Thanks/Like desmobob Thanks/liked this post
     
    Brent: Poway, CA
    D7200, D200, F100
    Tokina 12-24mm
    Nikon 18-200mm
    Tokina 28-70mm f2.6-2.8
    Nikon 80-200mm f2.8
    Sigma 150-600mm
    Nikon 50 AF f1.8
    Tokina 100mm f2.8 Macro
    Nikon SB800

  5. #5
    Senior Member

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

    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.
    Camera- D800, D7500, D40x
    Zoom Lenses-
    DX- Tokina 11-16 f2.8, Sigma A 18-35 f1.8, Nikon 18-140 f3.5-5.6
    FX- Tamron 15-30 f2.8, Nikon 35-70 f2.8, Nikon 80-200 f2.8, Nikon 24-120 f4, Nikon AF-P 70-300 f4.5-5.6 Sigma C 150-600 f5-6.3
    Prime Lenses- Nikon 50 f1.8g, Tamron 85 f1.8, Tokina 100 f2.8, Rokinon HD 8 f3.5

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    BF Hammer's Avatar

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

    Quote Originally Posted by hark View Post
    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/produ...mm_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 by BF Hammer; 01-21-2021 at 04:30 AM. Reason: found used lens available

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    BF Hammer's Avatar

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

    Quote Originally Posted by desmobob View Post
    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!

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Whiskeyman's Avatar

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

    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
    "If you think that things can't get any worse, you've never been in the military." - Anonymous

  9. #9
    Staff
    Super Mod
    hark's Avatar

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

    Any opinions on Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 vs 70-300mm f/4-5.6 ED?
    Quote Originally Posted by BF Hammer View Post
    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.

    Any opinions on Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 vs 70-300mm f/4-5.6 ED?-311143d1556969493-hark-2019-_dsc0063-low-res.jpg

    Any opinions on Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 vs 70-300mm f/4-5.6 ED?-311144d1556969497-hark-2019-_dsc0070-low-res.jpg

    Any opinions on Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 vs 70-300mm f/4-5.6 ED?-311145d1556969499-hark-2019-_dsc0073-low-res.jpg

    Any opinions on Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 vs 70-300mm f/4-5.6 ED?-311146d1556969500-hark-2019-_dsc0077-low-res.jpg
    Last edited by hark; 01-21-2021 at 02:43 PM.
    Cindy - D750, D500, D7200
    My 2021 Thread

    Where the Spirit does not work with the hand, there is no art
    -- Leonardo da Vinci



  10. #10
    Senior Member
    nikonpup's Avatar

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











    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).

    https://www.flickr.com/photos/pups_pleasure/






Quick Reply Quick Reply

If you are already a member, please login above before posting.

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •