nikon 70-200 vs 80-200

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Andrew Hennell - 06 Jan 2007 06:29 GMT

Wondering if anyone had comments about either lense.

the 70-200 has VR, 80-200 doesn't. otherwise almost identical from what
I can see - both crisp as and 2.8 throughout.

I was set on the 70-200, but is the VR worth double the price?

any advice?

Reply to this Message

Mr.T - 06 Jan 2007 06:47 GMT

> Wondering if anyone had comments about either lense.
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> any advice?

What type of subject do you shoot most often? For action shots the VR is of
little benefit IMO.
Have you also considered 100mm and 200mm primes, and a tripod? Anything in
between can be cropped just as well in software, with equal or better
results to a zoom, in most cases.

MrT.

Reply to this Message

Andrew Hennell - 06 Jan 2007 20:22 GMT

> What type of subject do you shoot most often? For action shots the VR is of
> little benefit IMO.
> Have you also considered 100mm and 200mm primes, and a tripod? Anything in
> between can be cropped just as well in software, with equal or better
> results to a zoom, in most cases.

I should have specified subject matter - horses, mostly jumping/eventing.
Primes are my preferred option, but limited zoom allows me more
flexibility from the limited access one has to the circuits.

Reply to this Message

Mr.T - 08 Jan 2007 02:28 GMT

> I should have specified subject matter - horses, mostly jumping/eventing.
> Primes are my preferred option, but limited zoom allows me more
> flexibility from the limited access one has to the circuits.

Well in that case are you sure you won't just be working at the 200mm end
most of the time, and therefore be better off with a 200mm f2.8 prime for
less money and better performance?
Of course it depends on your camera too, is it a 1.5-1.6 crop? If it is you
will still be switching lenses for those close shots in the paddock anyway.

MrT.

Reply to this Message

Andrew Hennell - 08 Jan 2007 19:08 GMT

> Well in that case are you sure you won't just be working at the 200mm end
> most of the time, and therefore be better off with a 200mm f2.8 prime for
> less money and better performance?

primes are not flexible enough - from one position I can cover three
jumps or more, but all at different distances. In dressage, 70-200
gives me good coverage of the arena, a prime doesn't.

> Of course it depends on your camera too, is it a 1.5-1.6 crop? If it is you
> will still be switching lenses for those close shots in the paddock anyway.

1.6, and yes, I still switch lenses or carry 2 bodies - the latter is
more likely, with zoom on one and a shorter prime on the other.

But (I think) the original question was if Nikon VR was worth double the
money in a lense. No takers?

Reply to this Message

Mr.T - 09 Jan 2007 07:35 GMT

> primes are not flexible enough - from one position I can cover three
> jumps or more, but all at different distances. In dressage, 70-200
> gives me good coverage of the arena, a prime doesn't.

Fair enough. (Or you could consider those opportunities to get close ups :-)
I often see people miss action shots because they are still trying to zoom
and crop.

> 1.6, and yes, I still switch lenses or carry 2 bodies - the latter is
> more likely, with zoom on one and a shorter prime on the other.

Two bodies is my preferred option too.

> But (I think) the original question was if Nikon VR was worth double the
> money in a lense. No takers?

Well I did suggest I thought VR was of more limited value for action events.
In other words it's not worth double the money to me (well the Canon IS
equivalent in my case) I suggest if you have to worry about the difference
in cost, then it probably isn't worth it to you either. Of course someone is
bound to reply that VR/IS is always handy (if cost is not a consideration).
To which I reply, sure is, and can they please pay the difference :-)

MrT.

Reply to this Message

Pete Z - 06 Jan 2007 11:32 GMT

Andrew,

I've had both and am currently using the 70-200.

I wont do a full report on them but there's a thread that details the
sentiments

see: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=21543660

cheers,

- peteZ

> Wondering if anyone had comments about either lense.
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> any advice?

Reply to this Message

Andrew Hennell - 06 Jan 2007 20:23 GMT

> Andrew,
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> see: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=21543660

MUCH appreciated :)

I thought I'd searched out such threads, but obviously missed some good
ones.

thanks,
Andrew

Reply to this Message

J.P. - 08 Jan 2007 09:51 GMT

>the 70-200 has VR, 80-200 doesn't. otherwise almost identical from what
>I can see - both crisp as and 2.8 throughout.
>
>I was set on the 70-200, but is the VR worth double the price?

This ~may~ help.

http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_00.html

Reply to this Message