Nikon 70-200 AFS-VR 2.8 vs 80-200 AFS 2.8

[Watcher]

dammit how come when i'm there there's never this debate..

but there's heaps of mention about certain pple that are not there..

You don't grace us with your presence often enough...

 

[hackie]

how abt this? can anyone guess?

 

[sykestang]

how abt this? can anyone guess?

Hmmm... :think: By looking at the saturated blue colour of the boy's tee-shirt. If my guess is correct, this is from the AF70-200VR. :think:

Rite? ;p

 

[hackie]

anymore guesses??

 

[espn]

Doesn't look like a powderful zoom lens to me. I don't think it's the 70-200VR if so, the 2nd shot's bokeh won't just be so deep.

 

[hackie]

oh.. dun judge by the color.. i'm using S2..

 

[sykestang]

oh.. dun judge by the color.. i'm using S2..

ai ya... didn't consider the camera factor... yes now it tells the story of why the skin tones colour is better than my D100...

Hmmm... :think:

Can reveal the settings like focal length, aperture, shutter speed, etc. some clue please... :sweat:

Also it is either the AFS70-200VR or the cheaper AF80-200D rite?

 

[hackie]

shot at f2.8, shutter shld be btwn 1/800 - 1/1500..

focal length is within 70-200..

 

[sykestang]

focal length is within 70-200..

Oh is that a clue??? :bigeyes:

Anyway I still think it is from a AFS70-200VR... Am I rite?

 

[KNIGHT ONG]

Hmm ..why don't we start a poll to see how many pple own which lens :think:

70-200mmf2.8G VR

80-200mmf2.8

 

[hackie]

Oh is that a clue??? :bigeyes:

Anyway I still think it is from a AFS70-200VR... Am I rite?

no la.. actually its the sigma 70-200..

i had owned the af and afs 80-200 before downgrading to get this sigma as i had wanted to get another lens..
but now got a good offer to get the afs vr 70-200.. :think:

sharpness btwn sigma n the other 2 older models r comparable except for some CA n softness at 200/2.8.. the hsm speed is also inbtwn the af n afs.. fast n accurate but a bit of hunting in low light..

so.. who wanna buy my sigma?? heheee...

 

[sykestang]

no la.. actually its the sigma 70-200..

:complain: We're talking abt Nikon Original AFS70-200VR f/2.8 ED and AF80-200D f/2.8 ED here... :kok:

sharpness btwn sigma n the other 2 older models r comparable except for some CA n softness at 200/2.8.. the hsm speed is also inbtwn the af n afs.. fast n accurate but a bit of hunting in low light..

Don't post other 3rd party brands here to further misled newbies...

Nikonians must stand by Nikon... use only original Nikon Stuff and you'd never go wrong. See your lens hunt in low light is a good example ;p

Sorry, but I'm a Nikon Freak.... :embrass:

 

[espn]

Nikonians must stand by Nikon... use only original Nikon Stuff and you'd never go wrong. See your lens hunt in low light is a good example ;p

Sorry, but I'm a Nikon Freak.... :embrass:

Well said sykestang, I'm proud of u! :thumbsup:

 

[hackie]

hahahaa.... ya.... afs vr 70-200 is the best!!!
*cos i'm getting it tmr!!!* keke....

 

[sykestang]

hahahaa.... ya.... afs vr 70-200 is the best!!!
*cos i'm getting it tmr!!!* keke....

:thumbsup:

Good choice... since you ever own the AFS80-200 and the AFD80-200, naturally 70-200VR is your next go.

 

[sykestang]

Ok here is the answers:

Lens : AF80-200D f/2.8 ED
Focal: 200mm
Exp : 1/640, F/2.8 ISO200

Lens : AFS70-200VR f/2.8G ED
Focal: 200mm
Exp : 1/640, F/2.8 ISO200

 

[surge]

i have owned the 80-200AF and now the 80-200AFS. initially was kinda disappointed with the AFS cos comparing to the AF version, it seems that the pics from the AFS is not as sharp-that is for handheld. when mounted on a monopod. the AFS perform great in terms of AF as well as picture quality, thought picture wise seems about the same. i believe the AFS is a bit harder to handheld successively due to the bigger barrel. and wt, thus making the AFD look better handheld. however the difference is only evident at 66% or 100% crop size. in other words if you print in below 8R, is very difficult to see the difference. think with a monopod, AFS can perform well at shutter of 1/15 or 1/30. then one can also argue that a AFSVR and a monopod can do 1/2 or 1/8. would love to put my ahnds on teh AFSVR though to see how it perform.the Speed of the AFS alone is a worthy upgrade from the AFD, very fast and quiet.
just my 2cts worth.

 

[surge]

sykestang,

do you think can provide coparing pistures taken heand held at 1/30 or 1/60 long end? cos at 1/640, the VR wouldnt make any difference woould it? is fast enough to hand held even a non VR

 

[Carllim]

Hi Guys,

I've been following this interesting thread and would like to share some test shots done using the 70-200 VR mainly to see how effective/useful VR can be.

All focal length @200mm, handheld without flash. No post processing done.

1/45sec, f/6.7, VR OFF

1/45sec, f/6.7, VR ON & NORMAL

1/20sec, f/11, VR OFF

1/15sec, f11, VR ON & NORMAL

My humble 2 cents views:
+ VR works beautifully!
+ I :heart: VR!
- VR good only if subject doesn't move.
- There's no substitue for a good tripod.

 

[gadrian]

Well here is one image to share.. this image is at 680x1024. It was resize using Nikon View 6.1 to jpg from raw. No post processing was made. btw..image filesize is only 90Kb.

Why such a huge file.. well so that you can see the details that the 70-200 AFS-VR f/2.8G lens can produce with VR on.. handheld.

This image has Exif attached.. so if you do not believe me.. you can check it out for yourself..

Nikon D100 - Raw (12bit)
Lens: VR70-200 f/2.8G
Focal Length:110mm
Exposure Mode: Manual
Metering Mode: Multi-Pattern - 1/60sec - f/2.8
Exposure Comp: 0EV
Sensitivity: ISO 320
WB: Cloudy -2
Colour Mode: Mode III
VR Mode: Active