Nikon 80-200mm vs 70-200mm

gman

gman

Messages
11,490
Name
Graham
Edit My Images
Yes
80-200mm f/2.8D AF-S IF-ED or 70-200mm f/2.8G AF-S VR II IF-ED

Would anyone have any experience of the two and which one is better? I've been reading reviews and not sure. I've heard excellent things about the 80-200mm but still unsure.
 
The 80-200 is was a very good lens, I had one of the twin ring models and the IQ was excellent and cost me about 1/3rd price of my 70-200 VRll - that having been said my 70-200 is my favourite lens and IQ is the best for me + I need VR for a lens of the size.
If the much higher price won't hurt then get the 70-200 but if money is tight/needed elsewhere you won't be disappointed with the 80-200.
 
Last edited:
Likewise, I saw no IQ difference between the two lenses (I had the two ring version).

I only went to the 70-200 for the VR and slightly faster AF.
 
Is the 80-200mm weathersealed? It's rather annoying when you go to look for reviews and the search results are swamped with Ken Rockwell. I do have a concern about the ultrasonic component with the older 80-200mm in respect to wear and tear. Easily replaced I guess?
 
I have both, though the 70-200mm only for a couple of months.
I'm pretty sure the 70-200 is better, but it's twice the price! (not twice the lens though).

I often use these lenses at fairly close distance, long end, wide aperture (zoo fences); this is why I thought I needed the 70-200.

I used to get very decent results with the 80-200 by backing off the long end down to 185mm. From what I now know about the 'breathing' of the 70-200, I am probaby getting less than that anyway with my 70's '200mm'.

Before I got the 70, the 80 was my favourite lens, it really looks like quality kit, and the results were almost always excellent. I am still unsure if I made a good decision.
 
If the 70-200 VR II is a bit too much for you the VR I is highly regarded. The VR does have some issues with vignetting on FX bodies but you waont see a difference on a DX body.

It's also worth mentioning that the VRII "breathes" at close focusing distances so at 200mm close up it is more like 135mm I think I read. I am sure someone can explain that better and mroe technically than me.

I have the VRII and love it.
 
Cheers for the replies. Found an 80-200mm 2.8 AF-S at a reasonable price so took a chance and bought it. Picked it up today and after a pro mate and I tested it I think I've been lucky and got an excellent copy. It sure is sharp!
 
I've got the old 80-200 push pull and it weighs a ton
 
I had a crack with my brothers 80-200 twin ring the other week, cracking little lens, solidly built and sharp as a razor, a little heavy, but not overly for a 2.8, D90 +grip/2 batterys & the 80-200 come in at just under 2.2kg
 
Everyone apart from the OP appears to be talking about the twin ring or push pull versions of the 80-200. The AF-S version was only produced for a short period and is a cracking lens. I've used a 70-200 but own an 80-200 AF-S. IQ is as good and in my opinion the only reason to upgrade would be the VR... Which I don't need.
You will love it
 
The 80-200 in its various versions and then the 70-200 in its 2 versions have improved progressively wide open and from about 150mm if you don't want to shoot wide open or at the long end then any of them are great, if you want good sharpness wide open at the long end buy the most expensive version you can afford.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top