What will Nikon 80 - 200 AF D F2.8 give me in over a Nikon 70 - 300 VR?

miurasv

miurasv

Messages
339
Name
Steve.
Edit My Images
Yes
Already have the 70 - 300 VR and I am wondering what a 80 -200 AF D F2.8 will give me over the lens I have? Thanks in advance.
 
increased depth of field, sharp at f/2.8, an extra 2-3 stops of light for dull days and a bad back

there's really no comparison,the 80-200mm is streets ahead in image quality compared to the consumer lenses.

The fact it's a 20 year old design and you can still buy it new is testament to it's quality
 
Pretty straight-forward really. 100mm less and a constant aperture of f/2.8. :D

In real terms, if there is enough light for the 70-300mm VR lens to be stopped down, the optics aren't a million miles away from the smaller but heavier lens. You basically pay for the constant aperture and nice sharp optics throughout the range.
 
wack61 said:
increased depth of field, sharp at f/2.8, an extra 2-3 stops of light for dull days and a bad back

there's really no comparison,the 80-200mm is streets ahead in image quality compared to the consumer lenses.

The fact it's a 20 year old design and you can still buy it new is testament to it's quality
Click to expand...

:agree: I went from the 70-300 to the 80-200 and the difference in iq is amazing. The 80-200 is a serious bargain(y)
 
miurasv said:
Already have the 70 - 300 VR and I am wondering what a 80 -200 AF D F2.8 will give me over the lens I have? Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

I'm in the converse position. I'm lucky enough to have the 80-200 AF D f2.8, but would like a little more reach when trying to photograph some of the birds in my garden. I'm torn between trying a 70-300 you have or the 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED. I you believe what you read the latter is slow to focus and I'm not sure how big a deal that is when tracking Sammy Squirrel or Woody Woodpecker. The 80-200 D is quick enough on a D90, that I know - or the wildlife around here are a bit lazy .... The f2.8 aperture is also very, very nice and as others have said, the quality of the pictures through that glass are very, very good indeed (to my unprofessional eye).
 
SilverSurfer said:
I'm in the converse position. I'm lucky enough to have the 80-200 AF D f2.8, but would like a little more reach when trying to photograph some of the birds in my garden. I'm torn between trying a 70-300 you have or the 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED. I you believe what you read the latter is slow to focus and I'm not sure how big a deal that is when tracking Sammy Squirrel or Woody Woodpecker. The 80-200 D is quick enough on a D90, that I know - or the wildlife around here are a bit lazy .... The f2.8 aperture is also very, very nice and as others have said, the quality of the pictures through that glass are very, very good indeed (to my unprofessional eye).
Click to expand...

In my experience of shooting birds, squirrels etc. with the 70-300mm VR, it really seems to get quite soft much past 200mm and I've had terrible results with getting it to focus properly at that length, too :shrug:. I have to admit, it was the first lens that I got for my D700 and I was using it last winter, when I was a relative beginner to DSLRs - so "user error" is not to be discounted here ;).

The irony is, I see this as a 70-220mm lens, as that's about the range before it goes soft :(.
 
SilverSurfer said:
I'm in the converse position. I'm lucky enough to have the 80-200 AF D f2.8, but would like a little more reach when trying to photograph some of the birds in my garden. I'm torn between trying a 70-300 you have or the 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED. I you believe what you read the latter is slow to focus and I'm not sure how big a deal that is when tracking Sammy Squirrel or Woody Woodpecker. The 80-200 D is quick enough on a D90, that I know - or the wildlife around here are a bit lazy .... The f2.8 aperture is also very, very nice and as others have said, the quality of the pictures through that glass are very, very good indeed (to my unprofessional eye).
Click to expand...

Would you not be better off getting a TC to use with the 80-200?
 
Why not get a cheap Nikon 300mm AF f/4 lens? Barneyrubble has one for sale at the moment (scuffed body but excellent optics). Would compliment the 80-200mm very nicely.
 
I had a chance to use my new 80 - 200 f/2.8 last weekend. It's a fantastic lens, and can give beautiful results at all extremities. This shot below was taken at 200mm f/3.5, and was a fast-moving subject. I love it - I'm really looking forwards to using it in low-light action shots.

3808452112_09007aa480.jpg
 
V8burble said:
...
I should have read this post first shouldn't I... it explains the TC issues http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=156693 looks like the Kenco TC will be ok.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, you have a point there although I did wonder when FITP mentioned that he didn't lack the lack of togetherness/stability. With a lens that heavy you want it solidly mounted - at least I would. I've invested too much in both the lens and the body to risk both with a weak link.
 
The kenko isn't a weak link, I use one on a 80-200mm f/2.8 and a 300mm f/2.8 which weighs 2x what the 80-200mm weighs and it's solid enough
 
SilverSurfer said:
Hmmm, you have a point there although I did wonder when FITP mentioned that he didn't lack the lack of togetherness/stability. With a lens that heavy you want it solidly mounted - at least I would. I've invested too much in both the lens and the body to risk both with a weak link.
Click to expand...

The Nikon TC is a much more substantial item than the Kenko one, it just feels like part of the camera once mounted. From what I recall, the Kenko one just felt loose by comparison.

I also seem to remember bumping the locking switch on the Kenko and disengaging the 80-200 whilst in use, but that may have been down more to my cack-handedness than any design defect with the Kenko tc :LOL:
 
wack61 said:
The kenko isn't a weak link, I use one on a 80-200mm f/2.8 and a 300mm f/2.8 which weighs 2x what the 80-200mm weighs and it's solid enough
Click to expand...

Always good to hear the good vs the bad sir! Do you use a 1.4x or 2x version?
 
Great lens, great build quality and IQ is superb. It's heavy but what f/2.8 isn't. Shame you get that useless hard case and not a useful hood. On my D200 I find it overexposes by half a stop or so - had the same problem with my Siggy 70-200mm but that's no biggy

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top