I've been wanting to add a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens for the extra reach (and maybe add the 1.4x teleconverter). I'm still mostly into landscape (vs. wildlife) and sometimes wish I had that extra reach for far-off landscape features, and also add more compression (vs. my 24-70mm) effect between close and distant objects.
The most recent model 70-200 f/2.8 8E FL ED VR is $2,800 USD (!) The prior model 70-200 f/2.8 8G ED VR II is less at $2,100 USD.
A camera store guy suggested I consider the 80-200 f/2.8 8D ED:
Advantages: Still get f/2.8 and 200mm for lower price (only $1,225 USD); smaller/weighs less.
Disadvantages: it doesn't have VR/vibration reduction, but the guy said that's less important since I'll likely be using this on a tripod more than handheld...i'm not sure about that), Nano Crystal Coat, and also doesn't have AF-S (Silent Wave Motor). Also, I would have a 10mm gap between my 24-70 f/2.8 lens, and where the 80mm starts.
Maybe VR isn't such a big deal but I can foresee times I'll want to hand hold and VR would be nice.
Not sure about benefits of Nano Crystal Coating, and Silent Wave Motor?
Is a 10mm gap going from my 24-70 to the 80-200 important? I don't think so, but it seems un-natural to skip 10mm!
I could (gulp) afford the 70-200, but I don't have to gulp nearly as much for the 80-200. Also, the camera store didn't have the prior model 70-200, making me think it will only be harder and harder to find.
I'm leaning toward the 70-200 for its features, so maybe I've talked myself into it just by typing all this. Still, I've learned from all of you and trust your experience, so I'd welcome any comments you may have.
Mark (aspiring light writer)