gadrian said:
Check image #3
This was taken with the 70-200 on the D100 @ ISO 250 at 1/50 f2.8.. I think it is sharp enough.. (HANDHELD BTW)
Nikon 70-200 AFS-VR 2.8 vs 80-200 AFS 2.8
- Thread starter Dennis
- Start date
- Status
Check image #3
This was taken with the 70-200 on the D100 @ ISO 250 at 1/50 f2.8.. I think it is sharp enough.. (HANDHELD BTW)
gadrian said:
Yes, but is it consistent in delivering the goods? Can one rely on it when it comes to the crunch?
Is there a degradation of picture resolution with VR turned on?
No use having VR to solve one thing (shake) at the expense of another, especially after paying a premium for it, is it?
Tetrode said:
Tetrode.. I can only say.. that I have used it in the field to cover 4 assignments so far.. and I have been happy with it.. it is up to what I have expected. Nothing short of it..
I think based on his review.. his results and not really impressived.. I have personally used it in the field.. and it has been impressive.. you can also check with others that use it.. AJ23 and Watcher are to name 2..
dead_pixel
New Member
Beachboy said:That lens is really good ... too bad i dun have money already ... if not i will purchase that lens
I think you only need the 80-200. It good enuf.. no need waste moni on 70-200, just use a tripod enough... sure sharp..
KNIGHT ONG
Senior Member
Dennis said:
Congratulation on your new VR 70-200mmf2.8 ....
This is my first test shot handheld without sharpening at ISO800; f4.0; 1/4sec.
But still IMHO a solid hand is required, can't based on the VR alone to get all the jobs done. I got tired holding it for too long .... needs to keep fit.
KNIGHT ONG said:Congratulation on your new VR 70-200mmf2.8 ....
This is my first test shot handheld without sharpening at ISO800; f4.0; 1/4sec.
But still IMHO a solid hand is required, can't based on the VR alone to get all the jobs done. I got tired holding it for too long .... needs to keep fit.
Agree 100% even with VR photo still comes out blur, maybe I also blur. Old already lah, cannot hold steady even with VR. Must switch to VR Active already.
sykestang
Senior Member
Why pull me in??? ;( I wasn't commenting anything on this thread!!! ;(gadrian said:
Gadrian -> :hung:
Since I am drag in to this, I might as well say something.
AF80-200 f/2.8 is a also good lens to own, besides having built with a aperture ring which is compatible to the older MF bodies, it also produces sharp pictures. CA is hardly noticeable, although GAdrian claims that the 80-200ED have little CA as compared to 70-200VR which produces almost 0 CA. I personally find that images from the cheap 80-200 and 70-200VR is about the same.
Both lens have similar beautiful bokeh from the 9 blades diaphram. The AF of the 80-200D f/2.8 ED lens is about 65%-70% of the AFS version, which is good enough for me.
Although one thing I must agree is the 70-200VR really works. I've tested myself and I find it good. Because I sometimes get blur images due to hand shake when handling the weight of the lens. VR solve this problem for me. As for the extra focusing speed of the AFS, I don't need that as I mostly shoot portrait. The current 80-200AFD lens that I own is fast enough.
However I've read about the 70-200VR is prone to flare and ghosting if you are not careful of the light source during shooting, this problem is also reported with the AFS version of the 80-200. And it is always recommended to mount the supplied hood. On the other hand, my AFD 80-200 do not have such problems and till now I do not have any pictures with any flare or ghosting from the AFD80-200.
Thus the final conclusion is that if you need the AFS fast focusing due to shooting of sports, etc and also for the fear of getting blur pictures due to long handling of the lens weight, get the AFS 70-200G VR (abt $3100). But of course, you must have a fat wallet :bsmilie: and don't expect it to work on your old MF bodies.
On the other hand, you can also get similar quality pictures for half the price from the 80-200AFD ED (abt $1580), if you don't required the VR and the little extra fast focusing speed. The extra money you save can be spend on a extra lens like AF12-24G f/4 ED (abt $1660)
or
AF35-70D f/2.8 (abt $1100) or 24-120VR(abt $970) or AF 105 Macro f/2.8D (abt $1050) or AF 85 f/1.8 (abt $650), or ..... other lenses etc still with spare cash for some more other things to play with ;p
For me I decided to go for the 2nd option, bought a AF80-200 f/2.8D and a AF35-70 f/2.8D together at the same time which covers all my range from 35mm - 200mm with a constant f-stop of 2.8. The total cost still cheaper than a single AFS70-200VR f/2.8G.
More fun with very very little drop in image quality as compared to 70-200VR. Not to mention I can still able to buy a cheap 2nd hand FM2 manual body with the extra saving and can still use both my lens with it. :bsmilie: :bsmilie: :bsmilie:
Dead pixel lets shake on it... good decision but please explain more of your stand next time.
Dead-pixel :cheers: sykestang.
And... :blah: to Gadrian & Watcher... maybe coming up AJ23 also since you're also being mentioned in one of GAdrian's post... ;p
sykestang :hammer:
I dont understand what is this.. you seem to have a personal vendetta or a rendevous with a brick wall..
Anyhow.. the 80-200 is a great lens.. I shot with it for 3 1/2 years.. and I even owned two of them.. I decided to move up to the 70-200 coz on the D100 the focusing speed is slow.. and the hunting during AF with this lens.. makes me a little tired when shooting events.. so yes I moved up to the 70-200.. Mine was a choice of application.. and not for bullish ranting like yours..
I dont understand what is this.. you seem to have a personal vendetta or a rendevous with a brick wall..
Anyhow.. the 80-200 is a great lens.. I shot with it for 3 1/2 years.. and I even owned two of them.. I decided to move up to the 70-200 coz on the D100 the focusing speed is slow.. and the hunting during AF with this lens.. makes me a little tired when shooting events.. so yes I moved up to the 70-200.. Mine was a choice of application.. and not for bullish ranting like yours..
sykestang
Senior Member
gadrian said:
:blah: :blah: :blah:
When did you ever see me doing a bullish ranting???
GAdrian :hammer:
I am just giving my personal feel here... I love the 80-200 as it is good enough for me and I wish to share with newbies here with D70 so that they can decide for themselves based on their budget... what is wrong with you, gadrian???
I did not say anything bad about the 70-200VR... in fact I love the VR function. The only thing I did point out to readers here that I do read about the 70-200VR & the 80-200AFS version does have ghosting or flare effect if one is not careful. Check it out in reviews by www.bythom.com, www.kenrockwell.com, etc. In fact, from a user of 70-200VR which I don't feel like naming here, admitted that he ever have shoot a photo with flare with his 70-200VR lens.
Each one of us have our needs and priorities in investing of equipments, like yours, you mentioned that you do own 2 80-200 AFDs and later upgraded it to 70-200VR. That is your need. Too bad for you that both your 80-200AFD hunts like mad during event shoot. However in my context, I do not need the upgrade as I felt that the 70-200VR is redundant and I don't really feel that I need the AFS and VR function, especially to pay double for it as compared to 80-200AFD. Also to add on I normally don't use 80-200 for event shoot, only once for kids performance on stage with the auditorium full darkness except the stage well lit. However it did not hunt madly and I can still shoot happily with it... maybe I have a better AFD80-200 lens as compare to yours??? ;p
This forum is a place for sharing of experience and to pass it down members & readers. Not for your personal ego and to make everyone here to follow your foot steps. If you wish to dictate others on what to get and go with your ego, go somewhere else... I'm sorry, but I don't own the Singapore Mint to pay double for all my lens with functions I feel that I don't need... :angry:
In fact I personally did not feel anuthing wrong with dead-pixel 's statement...
Isn't that how we get sharp photo on low lights without hand shake??? :bsmilie: Except for the fact that he did not mention that, mounting on tripod may not be always possible due to many unforseen circumstances. :bsmilie:Dead_pixel said:
Don't forget, I did not comment or compare anything on this thread until you mention my name!!! And finally back to you, 'Stop your bullish ranting here else you will really rendevous with a brick wall!!! and stop picking a vendetta on any one here!' :angry:
KNIGHT ONG
Senior Member
Dennis said:
I thot this thread should be closed coz the starter of this thread have finally decided and brought the lens he required. :lovegrin:
So guys ... to each his own let's not soiled our relationship here.
KNIGHT ONG said:I thot this thread should be closed coz the starter of this thread have finally decided and brought the lens he required. :lovegrin:
So guys ... to each his own let's not soiled our relationship here.
:what: oh.. dont worry about sykestang.. and me.. we get at this very often.. hehe.. :blah:
sykestang
Senior Member
Yes... yes... this is a topic that coincidentally been debating since weeks ago at our regular meet up place at Spinelli... :bsmilie: :bsmilie: :bsmilie: no winner till. Thus since Dennis brought this up online, we decided to continue our debate here :bsmilie: :bsmilie: :bsmilie:gadrian said:
Sorry to worry you guys here, this is not meant to be what you see, a big :flame: flame war... Together with me and Gadrian, Watcher, AJ23, espn and a few others is also our frequent 'debators' during the meet up. And at times joined by a new newbies here like recently, burnaway and beachboy.
Yes, maybe KnightOng is right, this thread shall be closed since the originator already made his decision.
I welcome all Nikon newbies who wish to know more to join us in Spinelli after office hours for friendly equipment chat and together we can explore more of Nikon and can share our shooting experiences. You can pm or sms me 96456423 to check whether we would be meeting up.
Hey GAdrian... shoot first and talk later rite?
We shall continue this AFS70-200VR vs. AFD80-200 in Spinelli ok? Cos we still have the lens test shoot-out competition on... remember the other day? :sweatsm:
:bsmilie: :bsmilie: :bsmilie: Never expect to worry readers here :bsmilie: :bsmilie: :bsmilie:
sykestang
Senior Member
Ok just tested out the AFS70-200VR f/2.8 this afternoon, the colours is slightly more saturated and bright as compared to my AF80-200D f/2.8 ED, maybe is due to the extra 2ED elements in it. I shall post the pictures here soon for you guys to enjoy.
However I did not get the same composition as the model decided to change location while I was in the mist of changing lens to my AF80-200ED :embrass:
Yes I agree with you, Gadrian, through my past experience on my AF80-200D that the colours is slightly more saturated. And although I like to have the VR, however I still wouldn't buy the AFS70-200VR due to the price. Can't justify to pay 2 times the price over a such a slight extra quality gained... :think:
:blah: Nah... still prefer to buy an extra lens with the saving from the AFS70-200VR :blah: Find more enjoyment in shooting with the extra lens than to enjoy looking at my photos with that little extra colour saturation... :bsmilie:
However I did not get the same composition as the model decided to change location while I was in the mist of changing lens to my AF80-200ED :embrass:
Yes I agree with you, Gadrian, through my past experience on my AF80-200D that the colours is slightly more saturated. And although I like to have the VR, however I still wouldn't buy the AFS70-200VR due to the price. Can't justify to pay 2 times the price over a such a slight extra quality gained... :think:
:blah: Nah... still prefer to buy an extra lens with the saving from the AFS70-200VR :blah: Find more enjoyment in shooting with the extra lens than to enjoy looking at my photos with that little extra colour saturation... :bsmilie:
- Status