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

[gadrian]

I'm really really impressed. I see you're able to research stuff on the Internet and cut and paste. And forget the moderator thing, I'd take a swipe at you if I didn't know what ABS was.

Haha.. isnt that what the internet is for.. hehehe :blah:

Sure.. let us jest.. hehe.. in all the fun of it.. hehe.. :blah: :blah:

Btw.. which part of the UK are you writing from.. I will heading down to Hertfordshire somewhere in August.. (God-willing).. perhaps a rendevous..

 

[sykestang]

Ok as promissed, here is my 800x600, file size 101kb, good quality JPEG conversion from RAW using Nikon View 6.1, shoot on leaves using my AF80-200 f/2.8D ED lens with similar setting from Gadrian's shoot earlier, 200mm, 1/60, f/4 ISO320, 0 EV. You may download and check the EXIF data.

Yes, at that speed 1/60, the VR really plays works and play important role. However I believe this image is still well acceptable and the details from the AF80-200 f/2.8D ED lens do not lose out too much, rite?

BTW GAdrian, I got a few question to ask:
- How did you manage to get a true black background, hope you didn't pluck out the leaves and place them on a black background. Anyway I don't think you did that also?
- I believe you uses flash rite, for mine I uses DTTL fill-flash?
- Also how did you managed to size and crop to acheive 1024 x 680 using Nikon View 6.1?

 

[gadrian]

BTW GAdrian, I got a few question to ask:
- How did you manage to get a true black background, hope you didn't pluck out the leaves and place them on a black background. Anyway I don't think you did that also?

>>>> Nope.. didnt pluck any leaves.. the plant actually had a hard background.. the leaves were in the sunlight.. or overcase light.. will the rest of it was in the shade..

- I believe you uses flash rite, for mine I uses DTTL fill-flash?
>>>> Nope.. no flash was used..

- Also how did you managed to size and crop to acheive 1024 x 680 using Nikon View 6.1?
>>>> Right click on the image.. select the option.. copy and resize as JPEG file..

 

[leonzhu]

hmmm... maybe it's time for a change of perspective.

A great photograph is one that fully expresses what one feels, in the deepest sense, about what is being photographed. -Ansel Adams

Great photography is about depth of feeling, not depth of field. -Peter Adams

Every time someone tells me how sharp my photos are, I assume that it isn't a very interesting photograph. If it was, they would have more to say. -Anonymous

just my 2cents. or rather, those of the persons i've quoted.

 

[gadrian]

Every time someone tells me how sharp my photos are, I assume that it isn't a very interesting photograph. If it was, they would have more to say. -Anonymous

Very profound.!!! Yeah.. they are just trying to distract you from the fact their composition was an after thought.. hehe..

 

[sykestang]

BTW GAdrian, I got a few question to ask:
- How did you manage to get a true black background, hope you didn't pluck out the leaves and place them on a black background. Anyway I don't think you did that also?

>>>> Nope.. didnt pluck any leaves.. the plant actually had a hard background.. the leaves were in the sunlight.. or overcase light.. will the rest of it was in the shade..

- I believe you uses flash rite, for mine I uses DTTL fill-flash?
>>>> Nope.. no flash was used..

hmmm.. interesting, no flash and in overcast... will try again.

- Also how did you managed to size and crop to acheive 1024 x 680 using Nikon View 6.1?
>>>> Right click on the image.. select the option.. copy and resize as JPEG file..

hey... still no 1024x680... closes is 1024x768...

Why mine can diffs from yours when both is NV6.1. Does it actually show you the customised size, mine just a bar to drag left and right for the pre-set sizes. :dunno:

 

[leonzhu]

Every time someone tells me how sharp my photos are, I assume that it isn't a very interesting photograph. If it was, they would have more to say. -Anonymous

Very profound.!!! Yeah.. they are just trying to distract you from the fact their composition was an after thought.. hehe..

But really, it's no use if you have a photo that is well-focused, sharp, contrasty and with amazing colors... if the photo itself is uninteresting, with no impact of its own.

that said, an amazingly impactful and thought-provoking image can be screwed by really bad focussing/sharpness/dof/etc. the important thing is striking a balance.

"acceptable image quality+amazing image content" beats "amazing image quality+shitty image content" anyday.

 

[gadrian]

hmmm.. interesting, no flash and in overcast... will try again.




hey... still no 1024x680... closes is 1024x768...

Why mine can diffs from yours when both is NV6.1. Does it actually show you the customised size, mine just a bar to drag left and right for the pre-set sizes. :dunno:

I guess you would have to try it again.. without flash.. and see if you can reproduce the same sharpness.. and again without tripod..

Mine also only has 1024x768.. but after resize becomes 1024x680.. dont know why.. hehe.. I just did another one to test.. yupp.. the same results..

 

[sykestang]

OT a little...

This thread have reach the top 3 position on the no. of replies to any posts besides the few standard 'sticky announcement' :bigeyes:

And

This thread is also the top 6th position on the no. of views besides the few standard 'sticky announcement' :bigeyes:

Looks like the AFS70-200VR f/2.8 vs AF80-200D f/2.8 really strike a great interests with the Nikonians in CS... :bsmilie:

Keep it going guys... we can make it to the top!!!

 

[leonzhu]

I guess you would have to try it again.. without flash.. and see if you can reproduce the same sharpness.. and again without tripod..

Mine also only has 1024x768.. but after resize becomes 1024x680.. dont know why.. hehe.. I just did another one to test.. yupp.. the same results..

dear lao jiaos...... it's because our D100s shoot in 3:2 aspect ratio! :blah: :blah: you need a newbie to teach you that? :devil:

 

[gadrian]

dear lao jiaos...... it's because our D100s shoot in 3:2 aspect ratio! :blah: :blah: you need a newbie to teach you that? :devil:

:embrass: :embrass: :embrass: :embrass:

then again.. I not lao jiao.. hehe..

:blah: :blah: :blah: :blah:

 

[leonzhu]

:embrass: :embrass: :embrass: :embrass:

then again.. I not lao jiao.. hehe..

:blah: :blah: :blah: :blah:

no, you're just a "very experienced and nice guy"..... :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah:

oh yes, and my shifu!

 

[sykestang]

I guess you would have to try it again.. without flash.. and see if you can reproduce the same sharpness.. and again without tripod..

Mine also only has 1024x768.. but after resize becomes 1024x680.. dont know why.. hehe.. I just did another one to test.. yupp.. the same results..

nah... sian already... shoot 20+ shots just to get one I like . I believe you know what is the weight of the D100+MB100+2 EN-EL3+SB800+5 AA batts+80-200 f/2.8 rite. Even initial sharp will also becomes blur later due to flustration and tire out non-stop. Moreover on non-interesting subject, leaves, with a lot of decay stuff, decomposed worms, wet soil & animals dung, rubbish, etc at background and still zoom to 200mm to see them as if I can't see their existence... :nono:

No... not again... better shoot models. More interesting.

No need to compare, VR works... but both lens gives somewhat similar good quality images. Thus for users here, if you got money, need VR, need speed, weak hands that totally can't hold up the lens to shoot even a couple of shoots, etc buy the AFS70-200VR else, be like me, stick to the 'poor man' 200mm tele lens.

I believe my image here already proof that the 2 lens would gives almost the same quality pictures and with good sharp details right, of cos the 80-200 would need extra skills like handling before it can gives the same quality, rite? ;p

 

[sammedia]

hmmm... maybe it's time for a change of perspective.

A great photograph is one that fully expresses what one feels, in the deepest sense, about what is being photographed. -Ansel Adams

Great photography is about depth of feeling, not depth of field. -Peter Adams

Every time someone tells me how sharp my photos are, I assume that it isn't a very interesting photograph. If it was, they would have more to say. -Anonymous

just my 2cents. or rather, those of the persons i've quoted.

Well say!!! :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

 

[gadrian]

nah... sian already... shoot 20+ shots just to get one I like . I believe you know what is the weight of the D100+MB100+2 EN-EL3+SB800+5 AA batts+80-200 f/2.8 rite. Even initial sharp will also becomes blur later due to flustration and tire out non-stop. Moreover on non-interesting subject, leaves, with a lot of decay stuff, decomposed worms, wet soil & animals dung, rubbish, etc at background and still zoom to 200mm to see them as if I can't see their existence... :nono:

No... not again... better shoot models. More interesting.

No need to compare, VR works... but both lens gives somewhat similar good quality images. Thus for users here, if you got money, need VR, need speed, weak hands that totally can't hold up the lens to shoot even a couple of shoots, etc buy the AFS70-200VR else, be like me, stick to the 'poor man' 200mm tele lens.

I believe my image here already proof that the 2 lens would gives almost the same quality pictures and with good sharp details right, of cos the 80-200 would need extra skills like handling before it can gives the same quality, rite? ;p

I dont think VR is for those with weak hands.. I dont think that is why VR was created.

If you only knew in what conditions was my image taken in.. then you would not complain to much about dead worms... and blah blah.. imagine a swarm of "commando" mosquito's... buzzing and bitting while you take the shot.. and hey.. I have the bites to prove and witnesses too..

That is what photography is about.. for those that make it a passion.. and no.. I dont think you image has proved the point yet.. Coz you were using flash.. and I dont think you CAN make the point here.. unless both images were shoot under the same situations and lightings.. if you were not using flash.. your images was probably to be shot at 1/20.. do you think you can achieve the same sharpness.. (without a tripod) hmm.. 70-200 ROKX!!!!

 

[Ansel]

I think no one ever thought that the 80-200 IF-ED is inferior to 70-200 VR. If anything, I would expect the 80-200 to be better than the 70-200 optically simply because it has fewer lens elements (21 vs 16). If you have fewer elements, you have an natural advantage. That's one of the reasons primes are usually better than zooms, most simply because they have fewer elements compared to zooms.

Now, if both lenses are mounted on tripods, and pictures taken by both lenses show that they are of equal quality, ie, sharpness, contrast, bokeh, colour rendition, etc, are equally good, then which lens should get the praise? I think we have proven on this thread that this is in fact the case, right? So which lens will I give the thumbsup to? Naturally to the 70-200 VR, because, even though it has 5 more elements working against it, it has managed to maintain the optical quality of it's predecessor.

Now in the second scenario, where both lenses are handheld, we have found that, the VR feature of the 70-200 have enabled even experienced photogs like gadrian to capture images of nature with slow shutter speed, that would otherwise require the use of aritificial lights or tripod.

The 80-200 was my first love among zoom lenses of this range. In fact I almost bought the older, no tripod collar version of it, but found it too heavy for any serious hand held shooting. When the tripod collar one came out I was overjoyed, but my bank account wasn't. I eventually bought the 180mm f2.8 prime (this lens now resides in the arsenal of another CSer looking at this thread now). Question, why didn't Nikon put a tripod collar on the 180 mm prime? Simply because this prime is much lighter than the 80-200 and you are expected to hand hold it effectively. For the 80-200, the tripod collar was added after a lot of experienced people complained to Nikon that the lens was much too heavy for hand holding and people would do well to use the tripod whenever they can. This is another one of those Nikon touches I admire. :thumbsup:

Finally, when the VR technology has finally become matured, Nikon found it wise to include it in their new telephoto lens, the 70-200, slated to replace the 80-200. Field tests have proven that this new VR technology has help to save pictures that were otherwise lost due to handshake when the lens was hand-held. :sweat:

For people with shaky hands, like myself, the VR feature is a live saver, or rather picture saver, having had a few occasions to try it out. :sweatsm:

For people who have strong and steady hands like sykestang, look at it this way, if you now can hand hold a 1/30s exposure at 200mm without VR, with VR, you can probably hand hold it at 1/8s or even slightly slower. Don't you think that opens up a whole new world of photographic possibilities? ! :think:

But unfortunately, this whole new world is not cheap, given the premium you pay for VR. Hopefully in the future this technology will become commonplace, and CHEAP! :lovegrin:

 

[sykestang]

I dont think VR is for those with weak hands.. I dont think that is why VR was created.

If you only knew in what conditions was my image taken in.. then you would not complain to much about dead worms... and blah blah.. imagine a swarm of "commando" mosquito's... buzzing and bitting while you take the shot.. and hey.. I have the bites to prove and witnesses too..

That is what photography is about.. for those that make it a passion.. and no.. I dont think you image has proved the point yet.. Coz you were using flash.. and I dont think you CAN make the point here.. unless both images were shoot under the same situations and lightings.. if you were not using flash.. your images was probably to be shot at 1/20.. do you think you can achieve the same sharpness.. (without a tripod) hmm.. 70-200 ROKX!!!!

Yes... it have already proven the point. I just wanted to make sure optically, my 80-200 is not too inferior to the 70-200VR. Frankly speaking, I agreed that due to the extra 2 ED element of the 70-200VR, I did notice a little saturation of colour in pictures taken by the 70-200, but this is very slight difference away from my 80-200, for me to justify double the price for an upgrade.

As picture above, I took it without tripod at the setting same as yours, ie Manual exp. 1/60, f/4, ISO320, no tripod (handheld). Look at the details and sharpness of the leaves, it abt the same from your picture. I uses flash is because I thought that the glitering lights reflected from the leaves surface from your picture is the reflection of the flash light.... hehe.

Yes, VR is not just for 'weak hands', its just my 'joking remarks'... but of cos, VR can also help those with weak hands to produce sharp images rite? We should not deny the weight of the lens... ;p

Yes, I agree, if given a slower speed situation, my picture may not be as sharp. However, just to let readers here now, I do not shoot with this lens at anything lower than 1/30 where at times I encounter hand shake due to low speed. If needed, I would use my primes. That's the reason why I keep a set of primes from range 28mm all the way to 300mm. (BTW, I am the CSer Ansel mentioned who bought over his 180mm f/2.8). On top of that I mostly shoot portraits, where, lights are controlled indoor and for outdoor, generally, the speed is mostly 1/80 and above.

So as I mentioned earlier, if you needed the VR and AFS and got money to spare, get the 70-200VR. However if you just like to shoot with that focal range and still want to maintain the quality of a constant f/2.8 lens, just get the cheaper 80-200 cos it would still produce the similar picture quality of the 70-200VR at half the price.

 

[clive]

So as I mentioned earlier, if you needed the VR and AFS and got money to spare, get the 70-200VR. However if you just like to shoot with that focal range and still want to maintain the quality of a constant f/2.8 lens, just get the cheaper 80-200 cos it would still produce the similar picture quality of the 70-200VR at half the price.

finally concluded
:thumbsup: :sweat:

 

[gadrian]

Tang.. the fact here is not whether you shot at slow shutter speeds of 1/15 and 1/30 or not.. you maybe the exception not the norm vice versa for me..

when I was using this lens (80-200).. it used to frustrate me when I was trying to do the same images handheld.. that would end up blurry coz of hand shake..

back to point of this thread was to compare the AFS-VR 70-200 IF-ED and the 80-200 IF-ED AF-D lens.. meaning taking into full account all aspects of the lens.. from size, weight and position of controls.. to the functions that are built into this lens.. from ED, ASP, VR and SWM..

It is therefore my opinion.. as of such.. a true and direct point has not been made.. coz both images were shot under different lighting conditions.. and the usage of flash also effects image.. using flash helps to freeze and image and minor shake blurs from handshake can be rendered unnoticable.

It is therefore important to replicate the test under the same lighting and exposure settings.. not just same shutter and aperture.. as was my objective was to show how the lens performed under low lighting conditions..

 

[sykestang]

Tang.. the fact here is not whether you shot at slow shutter speeds of 1/15 and 1/30 or not.. you maybe the exception not the norm vice versa for me..

when I was using this lens (80-200).. it used to frustrate me when I was trying to do the same images handheld.. that would end up blurry coz of hand shake..

back to point of this thread was to compare the AFS-VR 70-200 IF-ED and the 80-200 IF-ED AF-D lens.. meaning taking into full account all aspects of the lens.. from size, weight and position of controls.. to the functions that are built into this lens.. from ED, ASP, VR and SWM..

It is therefore my opinion.. as of such.. a true and direct point has not been made.. coz both images were shot under different lighting conditions.. and the usage of flash also effects image.. using flash helps to freeze and image and minor shake blurs from handshake can be rendered unnoticable.

It is therefore important to replicate the test under the same lighting and exposure settings.. not just same shutter and aperture.. as was my objective was to show how the lens performed under low lighting conditions..

Still not concluded yet....

Ok but we must really meet together with both lenses and under the same lighting condition and same subject... but what's the point.

I shoot different from you, I only love 'beautiful' models ;p Leaves, I am in the least interested, that's why I sold my only 60mm Micro off. Yes I admit my lens did hunts a little when I took the above 'leaves' picture due to low light. But no harm done as the leaves would run away...

AFS - I don't need on this lens cos I only use it on models
VR - I don't need as I can hold it quite well on 1/60 or even at times moderate at 1/45
FTM - Full time manual, I don't need also, anyway my eye sight always fails me on manual focus even with a 50mm!!!
Focuslock - I don't need as I don't shoot sports.
2 extra ED - Hmmm, it is nice to have but to pay double for it? Subjective.
Weight - The 80-200 is lighter 1300g compare to 1430g
Built - I still prefer the nice crinkle finish of the 80-200. As for the slimmer barrel of the 70-200VR, my hands are big, I still prefer the 80-200.
Tripod colar - I somewhat feels that the 70-200VR tripod tends to block my hand although it can be remove. As for the 80-200, it feels more comfortable in fact I don't need to shift it away.

What else you think I need? In fact now I thought of getting a FM2 body to play with... I believe the 70-200VR can't use on a FM2 as it is a G lens rite?

Users here, if you want to read some reviews on what you actually need can refer to:
AF 80-200D f/2.8 ED
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/80200.htm

AFS 70-200G f/2.8 VR ED
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70200vr.htm

In fact the above reports that the 80-200D f/2.8 has a lesser distortion on the lower zoom as compared to 70-200VR.