thats for sure like wat our fellow cser karkadann has mentioned
70-200mm or 80-200mm
- Thread starter spazzer
- Start date
- Status
thats for sure like wat our fellow cser karkadann has mentioned
pigs_can_fly
New Member
David, you are in CS! Phil introduced you to CS? So, you have finally got the S5Pro. 
Most probably, I will be going back to Siem Reap in Feb 08. See ya around!
Most probably, I will be going back to Siem Reap in Feb 08. See ya around!
satan_18349
Deregistered
The 70-200 of cos, unless you are intending to use on older film bodies. Both RRP cost about the some but the VR is slimmer and lighter.
cichlid
Senior Member
satan_18349
Deregistered
Saw 1 piece at the 2nd hand shop beside CP peninsula.
Mate,
What do you suggest? To get a 2nd hand near to Mint cond AFS80-200 selling from $1500-$1800 or to get a brand new 70-200?
In terms of Quality & importancy usage of VR buildin?
Can PMed me if you prefer.
Thanks!
satan_18349
Deregistered
Well, i got both and image quality wise are about the same. VR is an added bonus to sharpness esp at long focal length even during daylight shooting. Try sourcing for a 2nd hand 70-200, some are selling only around $2100+-. Once you have it, you'll never think of others.
http://www.mobile01.com/topicdetail.php?f=248&t=251192
(In Traditional Chinese)
this guy compared AFS 80-200 with 70-200 VR. Quality wise I think AFS 80-200 is better than VR. But this only happens when u see at 100% size. If u usually resize the pic, there should be no obvious difference
(In Traditional Chinese)
this guy compared AFS 80-200 with 70-200 VR. Quality wise I think AFS 80-200 is better than VR. But this only happens when u see at 100% size. If u usually resize the pic, there should be no obvious difference
Not all lenses are made the same. What that means...
Just look at any identicle prime or zoom lenses from your friend(s)/shop & compare them side by side under good lighting condition. Even the coating on each of the glass are almost/totally different too. Not to mention, the contrast & sharpness to each lens.
It all depends on just how lucky you are to pick a best out of the rest when purchasing one. Some really get the best copy. This are mass production piece of equipment, so bound to have certain flaws here or there. Unless you are talking about German lenses....
Anyway, this are just my personal experience only. Cheers & make full use of what you have in hand.
Just look at any identicle prime or zoom lenses from your friend(s)/shop & compare them side by side under good lighting condition. Even the coating on each of the glass are almost/totally different too. Not to mention, the contrast & sharpness to each lens.
It all depends on just how lucky you are to pick a best out of the rest when purchasing one. Some really get the best copy. This are mass production piece of equipment, so bound to have certain flaws here or there. Unless you are talking about German lenses....
Anyway, this are just my personal experience only. Cheers & make full use of what you have in hand.
DeadEnd
New Member
Seem like the 70-200mm VR also suffer from the same softness at the tele end wide open just like the AFD 80-200mm
This may sound a little ot, but if the original poster of this thread just wants a longer tele lens for occasional shooting, why not pick up an old AIS 105 2.5? If you're not going to use at extreme ranges the old 105 translates to around 160mm FOV, lens is small and is super tack sharp and built like a tank.. and you can get one for less than S$300 2nd hand : P
That being said, while I'm happy with a 105mm, if I was loaded enough or liked teles enough, I'd go for the more portable version of either the 70-200 or the 80-200mm as a first selection criteria before deciding b/t VR or not. IQ are so close for both that its a non factor for me. Weight matters a lot to me when doing events. I remember the days of carrying a huge 200-500mm F5.6 Tamron ard National Stadium and WISHING I had my friend's 80-200mm 2.8 : P
That being said, while I'm happy with a 105mm, if I was loaded enough or liked teles enough, I'd go for the more portable version of either the 70-200 or the 80-200mm as a first selection criteria before deciding b/t VR or not. IQ are so close for both that its a non factor for me. Weight matters a lot to me when doing events. I remember the days of carrying a huge 200-500mm F5.6 Tamron ard National Stadium and WISHING I had my friend's 80-200mm 2.8 : P
I have both the AF-S 80-200mm and recently bought the AF-S 70-200mm VR, and I used to have the AF-D 80-200mm One Touch.
The reason why I upgraded from the AF-D was because of the speed of focusing on a non-Pro camera. On my F5, it was absolutely acceptable, but when I get my first D-SLR (D70s), it was a complete slug because of the body. The AF-S compensates for the slowness, but the price is high.
I bought the AF-S 70-200mm VR just today because of VR. I've held back for so long because I still have manual bodies that require the apature ring; unfortunately the 70-200mm doesn't.
I've finally decided to retire my Manual bodies and am upgrading all my lenses to the 'G' versions. Just completed that today.
Here: http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=365988
The reason why I upgraded from the AF-D was because of the speed of focusing on a non-Pro camera. On my F5, it was absolutely acceptable, but when I get my first D-SLR (D70s), it was a complete slug because of the body. The AF-S compensates for the slowness, but the price is high.
I bought the AF-S 70-200mm VR just today because of VR. I've held back for so long because I still have manual bodies that require the apature ring; unfortunately the 70-200mm doesn't.
I've finally decided to retire my Manual bodies and am upgrading all my lenses to the 'G' versions. Just completed that today.
Here: http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=365988
giantcanopy
Senior Member
It is an interesting question. While it is obvious that the display television units obviously have an impact on their lifespan, I am not too sure of the camera lenses.
For the shops that do not have display sets, I always thought they open up some random sample and let people try.
You can ask the seller and if they are not new u can choose to reject.
Ryan
knpan
Senior Member
i am having a dilemma,
Nikons 70 - 200mm f2.8 vr is totally out of the choice as it is expensive.
I wonder if i should get the new mark 2 sigma hsm 70- 200mm f2.8 macro or the Nikon Af-d 80-200mm f2.8
I have been surveying the shops for the past 3 months for prices and both are close to each other.
Already 2 shops have said rather pay like 50+- for nikons 80- 200mm.
1 shop said dont go to sigma because the af speed will slow down over 2 years, which i have not seen the focus speed go down on the previous 70-200mm f2.8 first version, which is about 2 and half years old already.Sold it to upgrade.
In my mind it is the sigma mark 2, as it is hsm driven, while the nikons 1 is not. I can even add a 2xtc to the sigma and it will still af at 400mm so it isnt that bad.
Hearing the shops opinion gave me a second thought though. Still thinking about it as it is big money:think: hmmmm
Nikons 70 - 200mm f2.8 vr is totally out of the choice as it is expensive.
I wonder if i should get the new mark 2 sigma hsm 70- 200mm f2.8 macro or the Nikon Af-d 80-200mm f2.8
I have been surveying the shops for the past 3 months for prices and both are close to each other.
Already 2 shops have said rather pay like 50+- for nikons 80- 200mm.
1 shop said dont go to sigma because the af speed will slow down over 2 years, which i have not seen the focus speed go down on the previous 70-200mm f2.8 first version, which is about 2 and half years old already.Sold it to upgrade.
In my mind it is the sigma mark 2, as it is hsm driven, while the nikons 1 is not. I can even add a 2xtc to the sigma and it will still af at 400mm so it isnt that bad.
Hearing the shops opinion gave me a second thought though. Still thinking about it as it is big money:think: hmmmm
Die Hard
Senior Member
Go get the Nikon AF-D 80-200mm f2.8 the AF are faster and not as noise as sigma
- Status
Similar threads
