+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 2 of 2
  1. #1
    Senior Member

    Upgrade from nikjon to nikon

    I have a nikon 80mm-200mm 2.8 lens that I purchased in the 1993 era. I am considering upgrading to the nikon 70mm-200mm VRII. I am not sure if I will get better photo quailty. Most time I am shooting at 200mm range. I know the 70-200 is smaller and weighs less then the 80-200mm. Can someone give some opinions on these lenses.As always thank you in advance


    › See More: Upgrade from nikjon to nikon



  2. #2
    Banned

    Re: Upgrade from nikjon to nikon

    Quote Originally Posted by BooBoos View Post
    I have a nikon 80mm-200mm 2.8 lens that I purchased in the 1993 era. I am considering upgrading to the nikon 70mm-200mm VRII. I am not sure if I will get better photo quailty. Most time I am shooting at 200mm range. I know the 70-200 is smaller and weighs less then the 80-200mm. Can someone give some opinions on these lenses.As always thank you in advance
    I only have the 70-200VRII and am over-the-moon with it! It's just one incredible lens but I don't have any first hand experience with the 80-200. However Thom Hogan (a highly respected author and Nikon devotee) had this to say about the issue you've asked about:

    Compared to the 70-200mm
    DX users can pretty much use either if they have a screwdrive. Indeed, I'd tend to say the 80-200mm is optically slightly better on DX than the old 70-200mm, slightly worse than the new one. The only significant tradeoffs are focus speed in some situations and loss of VR.


    For FX users, the 80-200mm still turns out to be a pretty good option. It is clearly better in the corners than the older 70-200mm once stopped down, but slightly less good than the new 70-200mm. The real issue for FX users is f/2.8: there's a clear loss of contrast and lower MTF scores wide open than for either 70-200mm. But again, by the time you get to f/4 the 80-200mm is better in most respects than the older 70-200mm on an FX body. Unfortunately, it never quite matches the new 70-200mm. So the old adage "you get what you pay for" comes into play here.

    Overall, for half the price you get much of the optical goodness of the 70-200mm lenses, but lose the best possible focus performance, a number of features, and some loss of contrast wide open. It's clear to me why Nikon has kept this in production for so long: it's just a darned good lens for its price. Sports shooters really don't need VR, anyway (they're usually keeping their shutter speeds at 1/500 or above). Event shooters might miss the VR, but they'll like the slightly smaller and lighter physique of the 80-200mm. Just watch that f/2.8: you'll need to optimize both your shooting discipline and your post processing to extract the best images from this lens wide open, as it will fight you a bit with loss of contrast, slight blur, and chromatic aberration in the corners at the extreme focal lengths.

    Drawbacks

    • Old-school Autofocus. Screwdrive autofocus is best on the pro bodies, slightly less capable on mid-range bodies, and not even available on most low-end Nikon DSLRs.
    • It Really Costs $40 more. You really should have the optional HB-7 lens hood, especially if shooting at closer distances where the front element is more prone to flare.
    • Feature Free. No VR, no AF-S, no Nano coating, no weatherseals. This is a basic lens.
    • Permanently Collared. The tripod collar is good, but not removable.

    Positives

    • Optically Fine. DX users won't find a significant flaw, FX users will still be very happy, especially at f/4 and smaller.
    • Friendly Price. Half the price (or less) than the 70-200mm II. Cheaper new than a used version of the older 70-200mm.
    LINK



Quick Reply Quick Reply

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

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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