Hi guys, better cool it. Not good debating like that. I have also used old 80-200 f2.8 long time before but had forgotten how it fairs and had not used a newly designed 70-200 before until now. If I have not forgotten both are very good lens and technology had creep in recently in new designs. IMHO the slight difference in sharpness and saturation does not matter. What matters is the eye behind the lens !!. Composition of the image and thinking how to paint with light is more important than the slight sharpness of one lens over the other or this brand x vs that brand y. When you first see a photo what captivate you is not what lens he used but the impact the photo have on you which keeps you thinking and that is what photography is all about. This can be achived even with a point and shoot if the lighting condition is correct and the composition is good and conveys what the photographer wants to show. The equipment merely aid in all the above and give more chances of capturing the moment.
Nikon 70-200 AFS-VR 2.8 vs 80-200 AFS 2.8
- Thread starter Dennis
- Start date
- Status
dead_pixel
New Member
sykestang said:
wah sykes.. you support me.. maybe we can go shoot with the 80-200 one day and challenge gadrian.. :blah: :blah:
KNIGHT ONG
Senior Member
80-200mm :thumbsup:
70-200mmVR :thumbsup:
Photographer ...... :think: :devil:
70-200mmVR :thumbsup:
Photographer ...... :think: :devil:
smallaperture
Senior Member
sykestang said:
Interesting debate here. Any discussion of the AF-S and the VR version should include the older D-ED version. The D-ED cost the least at around 1500 to 1600. I suppose that the D-ED version is the only choice for the serious amateur unless you have real deep pockets, no mortgage to pay, no car loans, no income tax to pay..... or money's easy come, easy go.
The D-ED version is a great lens to use, according to Ken Rockwell. This guy has got so much praise for it. I tried one the other day at TCW. Really fabulous lens to upgrade from the crappy Sigma70-300APO. The Sigma is a good lens to start with, but the D-ED is a real big step forward. Should have made a few shots there to see the results.
sykestang
Senior Member
:thumbsup: precisely why need to pay more when the AF 80-200D f/2.8ED is just half the price.smallaperture said:
BTW SmallAperture, we have been debating between the AFS70-200G VR ED and the AF80-200D f/2.8 ED all along.
And to ESPN :blah: :hung: :mad2: :flush: :kok: :hammer: :flame: to you...
sykestang
Senior Member
Alright OT too much already... For the benefit of the newbies here, I am attaching these 2 photos here, one taken using the AFS 70-200VR f/2.8 ED and other using AF80-200D f/2.8 ED. Both photos is taken on the same day, same event, however different clothings as I do not wish to switch lenses here and there and ended up missed some poses by the model.
Photos have gone thru minimum post process using Nikon Capture 4.01 with the usual tweak like brightness, contrast & sharpness. Note both photo uses the same post process setting in NC. See whether you can tell the difference in quality from these 2 photos and can guess which photo is taken using which lens...
Photo 1:
Photo 2:
Photos have gone thru minimum post process using Nikon Capture 4.01 with the usual tweak like brightness, contrast & sharpness. Note both photo uses the same post process setting in NC. See whether you can tell the difference in quality from these 2 photos and can guess which photo is taken using which lens...
Photo 1:
Photo 2:
- Status