70-200mm or 80-200mm

which lens would u prefer


Results are only viewable after voting.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yayaya... even if you wait 100 years, there's still be a better one over and over again..



What people are asking is NOW, PRESENT TENSE.:sticktong

thats for sure like wat our fellow cser karkadann has mentioned
 

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!

Image quality between the 80-200 and 70-200 AFS VR is not significant.

Once you start using a teleconverter, 1.4 or 1.7 AFS, the benefits of image stabilization become a lot more important. The 70-200F2.8 becomes a 280mm F4 or a 340mm F4.8 for the 1.7T /C .

I like the flexibility of having the converter, not having to carry another heavy lens around and to use the F2.8 when I need.

My Fuji S5 has excellent performance at 800 and 1600 ISO. With the 3 stops advantage of the VR lens; the combination works well for wildlife and costs less than a Nikkor 80-200 + 300 F4 . Ok its ½ a stop slower at 4.8; but as a 340mm combination its usable wide open and gives great results.

I don’t recommend the 2x converter as it degrades the image too much.
 

If still got AFS 80-200, which lens will u buy? 70-200 VR or AFS 80-200 ? ;)
 

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.
 

Btw where can i still find the 80-200 AFS?? Any recommendation?
 

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!
 

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.
 

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....:confused:
Anyway, this are just my personal experience only. Cheers & make full use of what you have in hand.:)
 

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

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
 

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.

Btw where can i still find the 80-200 AFS?? Any recommendation?

Here: http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=365988
 

the 80-200 is a great lens because of its value, price against quality.
the 70-200 is a great lens because of its high quality and of course the vr. . .
so can vote both? hah
 

Hi guys,

Just curious. Would you buy the 70-200 if the shop only left one on the shelf? Knowing that it might be a demo lens and is not cheap. I noticed both shop that I visited also left with one on the shelf.
 

Hi guys,

Just curious. Would you buy the 70-200 if the shop only left one on the shelf? Knowing that it might be a demo lens and is not cheap. I noticed both shop that I visited also left with one on the shelf.

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
 

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
 

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

Go get the Nikon AF-D 80-200mm f2.8 the AF are faster and not as noise as sigma
 

i am not sure which 1 has slower af but both are super fast to me, but not to the nikons vr yet.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top