Jump to content


Photo

80-200Mm F/2.8 Lens (Vs 70-200Mm F/2.8 Lens)?


  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 MarkM

MarkM

    <3 SDP

  • Stunners
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 511 posts
  • LocationOrange County, California
  • Lenses:AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR
    AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8E ED VR
    AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8E FL ED VR
  • Camera Body or Bodies:Nikon D750
    Sony RX100 M4

Posted 11 May 2017 - 08:55 PM

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.    

 

Thanks!

 

Mark (aspiring light writer)


  • Kevin McClave likes this

#2 TrailEx

TrailEx

    Geek

  • Stunners
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 102 posts
  • Lenses:Canon 24-70 F/4
    Canon 100-400 F/4.5-5.6 IS II
    Rokinon 24 F/1.4
    Rokinon 14 F/2.8
    Laowa 60mm F/2.8 2X Macro
  • Camera Body or Bodies:Canon 5D Mark IV
    Canon 6D

Posted 12 May 2017 - 06:57 AM

My main lenses go fro 24-70 and then 100-400, so I have a 30mm gap, which is not particularly important, except for those rare shots that are a little too wide for 70mm and a little too tight at 100mm. So a 10mm gap should be neglible.

 

However, VR/IS/OSS (whatever you want to call it!) is very useful past 100mm, and its a major minus to be lacking that for a telephoto lens. I assume the 80-200mm is a much older lens, so I would guess its not going to be as sharp as more recent lenses. If you want to spend a similar amount of money instead of shelling out for the prohibitively expensive new Nikon 70-200, you can look into the Tamron 70-200.


  • Kevin McClave likes this

#3 elcab18

elcab18

    Master Photographer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,837 posts
  • LocationSo Cal
  • Lenses:Nikon 12-24
    Nikon 16-35
    Nikon 50
    Nikon 24-85
    Nikon 70-200
    Nikon 105 micro
    Nikon 200-500 f 5.6
  • Flashes:Yongnuo YN 568 EX
  • Camera Body or Bodies:Nikon D610
    Nikon D500

Posted 12 May 2017 - 08:15 AM

Mark, I have the 70-200 f2.8 G ED VR ll, it's an awesome lens.  It's actually a great portrait lens, I use it a lot for action and sports shots, sometimes just my kids romping around in the back yard or on a hike.  It has the Nano coating (reduces or eliminates weirdness like ghosting that can occur from sidelight) and also the Silent Wave Motor (improved auto focus speed).  I love the versatility of the lens. My 2 cents, good luck with your decision!



#4 geedee

geedee

    Dedicated SDP Member

  • Stunners
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,337 posts
  • Lenses:Nikon 16-35 VR f4 50mm f1.4 70-200 VR II f2.8 x2 converter
    18-70 f3.5-4.5DX (kit for D70s)
    Tamron 150-600 f5-6.3
    Cannon 50mm f1.8
  • Flashes:Nikon SB 910
  • Camera Body or Bodies:Cannon AE1
    Nikon D70S D800

Posted 12 May 2017 - 09:07 AM

Mark, don`t know for sure though perhaps best to determine your own priorities as thoughtfully as you can and then try to buy gear that best suits YOU. as opposed to that which you may be sold on by clever advertising or salesmanship...?  I suspect defining one`s own priorities  can get somewhat lost in a fog of data and may not be as easy to define as we might think..?

 

You seem to be into landscape (?) with that in mind are we talking carrying your gear or just what you can get to by car with no more than a few yards of carrying involved.... what about travel.. do you take your gear on aircraft... in those considerations weight can be more of a consideration..?  For landscape F.2.8 and VR may not be worth the extra weight and cost... one accomplished landscape photographer chose an F4 max lens on weight factor alone and he ever works with a tripod, which he carries for miles.. 

 

Me..? Sure I wanted the best gear I could justify spending on and that way I could never think I was being held back by my kit.... I like landscape too and thus wide angle seemed the priority. that I often worked in tight rooms recording build progress the wide angle worked well there too thus that was ever my most used lens  16-35 f4 in my now FX kit..

 

In my previous DX (D70S) I had kit lenses 15-70 and 70-300 Nikkors though the latter was rarely used though I hoped to get more serious about photography as a hobby when I changed to FX  I bought a nifty fifty as a first lens and ordered up the 16-35 and 70-200 thinking that would be a strong basis to work from I soon discovered that 200mm was not an ideal wildlife lens due to lack of reach so ordered the x2 converter and even with that I thought it still fell short.... Sure if you are a born hunter, patient and stealthy or use  use a blind or cammo  then I am sure that you can capture great pics of animals that are shy of man with a 200 or 400, though even 400 was too short for me... and hand held even at 200 with VR can be a challenge for me in the AVERAGE of lighting situations in my part of the world and 2.8 restricts DOF somewhat so may not be the advantage you imagine or indeed worth paying for..?

 

So IF like me you want to try to see if you can capture wildlife better than before an even longer lens might be the answer...?  Longer than 400 and a Nikkor... Not for me, I could never justify the expenditure though the "third party" lens makers seem to have provided an option to try out longer reach at what might seem reasonable cost when compared the Canikon equivalents. I went for the Tamron 150- 600 on price reach and that I am never likely to capture an astounding image, the quality difference between that and the Canikon counterparts was never likely to play a part.... In truth compared to the Nikkor 600 I suspect I have more chance of capturing the creature with the zoom action of my Tamron than with the fixed length of the Nikkor... I suspect it takes a great deal of time and patience to handle such long lenses..   If I focus on something hand held with my 70-200 at 200mm and press the shutter, after the mirror re-sets that stationary subject which I might have had in the metering spot centre frame is well out of it, if in frame at all, so perhaps give it a try in the camera shop to see what you think before splashing the cash...?  

 

Having recently bought a 14-24 I am happy that I can cover a wide range of photographic opportunities provided by the lens choices I now have, all that is needed now is the ability to choose and use them wisely and of course the PP skills to be able to adjust an image to make it even better than my camera skills might have allowed.... I now have arrived at a situation whereby I have acquired more gear than I can carry any reasonable distance... hmm. 

 

Best wishes in your gear selection process Mark.... I just hope I ain`t muddied the water.



#5 MarkM

MarkM

    <3 SDP

  • Stunners
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 511 posts
  • LocationOrange County, California
  • Lenses:AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR
    AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8E ED VR
    AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8E FL ED VR
  • Camera Body or Bodies:Nikon D750
    Sony RX100 M4

Posted 12 May 2017 - 07:32 PM

Thanks guys.  Your comments are really helpful.  The lack of VR on the older 80-200 is, I now think, a deal killer.


  • elcab18 likes this

#6 rospondek

rospondek

    Super Geek

  • Stunners
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 357 posts
  • LocationKrakow, Poland
  • Lenses:AF-S NIKKOR 10-24mm F3.5-4.5G ED DX
    AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G
    AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II
    AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.4G
    Venus Optics LAOWA 60 mm f/2.8 Ultra-Macro 2:1
    AF-S NIKKOR 105 mm f/2.8G VR IF-ED MICRO
  • Flashes:R1C1 Wireless Close-Up Speedlight System
  • Camera Body or Bodies:Nikon D500

Posted 15 May 2017 - 02:33 PM

I've got 70-200 VRII and VR is just needed. You can have steady hands, you can take shots from tripod, but usually, especially with moving objects, you will have to move camera in some direction. Like during panning.

Without VR, even on high speeds, you will blur shots. And the longer the trip is the more your hands will be tired. And those lenses are so heavy that even with first shots you will have problems with steady hand held in some strange position. Like diagonally up or vertical.

 

I was thinking bout taking the classic one without VR but for me it was pointless.

 

NC can be, don't need to. For me it is not something special and extremely important. Cut's the flares but sometimes those flares are nice so... I'd rather see on every lens fluorine coat. This should be standard treatment.

 

SWM, I don't know. I've got this on micro and I can hear it is working (yup, not silent at all, or I've got some bat skills) but if it is something needed? Again for me not. But I'm not into wildlife so someone else should tell the difference between normal AF-S and SWM AF-S.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users