AFD 80-200 f/2.8 or AFS VR 70-300 f/4.5-5.6?

[mybearbrick]

owned and sold the AFD 80-200 f/2.8,
main complaints were:
1. bulky
2. constantly worry the MF/AF ring
3. soft at MFD wide open
4. soft at 80mm and 200mm wide open
5. awkward fixed tripod collar.
6. back-focusing at MFD. (i believe can be resolved with AF Tine Tune on D300/700)

other than that, was never disappointed by this lens and rather regret letting it go.
f/2.8 really made the difference even though many times i would go f/4 to f/5.6 to get sharpness when pixelpeeping.

 

[ExplorerZ]

owned and sold the AFD 80-200 f/2.8,
main complaints were:
1. bulky
2. constantly worry the MF/AF ring
3. soft at MFD wide open
4. soft at 80mm and 200mm wide open
5. awkward fixed tripod collar.
6. back-focusing at MFD. (i believe can be resolved with AF Tine Tune on D300/700)

other than that, was never disappointed by this lens and rather regret letting it go.
f/2.8 really made the difference even though many times i would go f/4 to f/5.6 to get sharpness when pixelpeeping.

my experience is a little different, i find sharpness is good thruout the range other than the tele-end even wide open. but there seems to be some CA problem at those places with extreme contrast:sweat:

 

[mybearbrick]

my experience is a little different, i find sharpness is good thruout the range other than the tele-end even wide open. but there seems to be some CA problem at those places with extreme contrast:sweat:

coincidently,
the new owner of my AFD 80-200 had incredibly sharp pictures that awed me!
he was using D300.
i believe the lens found its worthy owner/body.
it just was not meant to be mine bah... :cry:

 

[Daedalus Trent]

coincidently,
the new owner of my AFD 80-200 had incredibly sharp pictures that awed me!
he was using D300.
i believe the lens found its worthy owner/body.
it just was not meant to be mine bah... :cry:

:bigeyes:
guess AF-tuning really was the thing.. :bsmilie:

 

[woojacky]

If you guys are talking about the 70-200 VR f/2.8 then it's a good lense to use. the "older" version aka without the VR component is well good.
but if price is the thing to look at then people would always suggest 70-300 VR lense. but that's from me only.

 

[vonlichenstein]

:bigeyes:
guess AF-tuning really was the thing.. :bsmilie:

my 80-200 is driving me nucking futs. it back focuses on my D80, so i just screw it and use manual focus now. TIME TO BBB D300 or D700!

 

[mybearbrick]

my 80-200 is driving me nucking futs. it back focuses on my D80, so i just screw it and use manual focus now. TIME TO BBB D300 or D700!

yeah back-focusing has really been bugging my when I was using this glass,
I had to stop down to get more depth.
otherwise, I avoid focusing near MFD, where I felt the back focusing more pronouced.
nevertheless, this is still a very good piece of glass to keep!!!!
if only I had a D300 to correct this issue, i won't have sold it! :bsmilie:

I have yet to try 70-300 VR,
I am certain it is a good lens with an attractive price tag.
despite the fact that I might usually stop down to f4 - 5.6 to get a sharp picture on the AFD 80-200,
after having gotten used to f/2.8, I never really wanted to look back at slower lenses.
with an f2.8, I bid farewell to soft/blurry images from subject movements and higher iso; to me that justifies paying more for a fast lens.