Nikon 70-200 mm vs 80-200 mm

[marimagen]

May be this question has already been asked and answered! What is the difference in terms of quality between the Nikkor 70-200 mm f/2.8G ED and the 80-200 f/2.8 ED? (Cameras: D3s and D700). Thanks in advance, Marie

[Jeremy Payne]

May be this question has already been asked and answered! What is the difference in terms of quality between the Nikkor 70-200 mm f/2.8G ED and the 80-200 f/2.8 ED? (Cameras: D3s and D700). Thanks in advance, Marie

Image quality-wise, I think the 80-200 (I've used the AF-S version) is better than the original 70-200 VR - except at 70, of course.

I don't know:

A ) How the 80-200 AF-D compares to the AF-S

B ) How the new 70-200 VR fares

If use on a tripod use were my only need, I'd take the 80-200 over the old 70-200 ... but the VR is nice and for a lot of uses, I don't care about the issues.

For landscape use, I find the 70-200 useless after 135 -  the corners are miserable.  For me, it is fine from 70-135.

The 80-200 AF-S is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH better from 135-200 versus the old 70-200 IMO.

[marimagen]

Image quality-wise, I think the 80-200 (I've used the AF-S version) is better than the original 70-200 VR - except at 70, of course.

I don't know:

A ) How the 80-200 AF-D compares to the AF-S

B ) How the new 70-200 VR fares

If use on a tripod use were my only need, I'd take the 80-200 over the old 70-200 ... but the VR is nice and for a lot of uses, I don't care about the issues.

For landscape use, I find the 70-200 useless after 135 -  the corners are miserable.  For me, it is fine from 70-135.

The 80-200 AF-S is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH better from 135-200 versus the old 70-200 IMO.

Thanks for your input Jeremy. I meant the new 24-70 mm ED G FX,
Marie

[ThomasH_normally]

Thanks for your input Jeremy. I meant the new 24-70 mm ED G FX,
Marie

The autofocus in the classic 80-200 F/2.8 is really slow by present standards. I still use the old one-ring shift-turn ring, and consider it fantastic, the more that one can turn the entire lens-camera assembly with ease while holding the ring. Unfortunately I cannot tell much toward comparing the glass itself with the later 70-200 models... The 1st 70-200 VR took Nikon years over years in delay, it was the bitter time for them as pro's exercised the Stampede to Canon with their good glass, IS technology and fast autofocus of the EOS-1. The reputation if the 70-200 f/2.8 VR is tarnished by the bad test results all across the planet, thus the new VR MkII model, which is the "fix". This would hint that the classic 80-200 was a better lens as such, except for the AF issue.

The AF in the one ring version which I have was so slow, that a small ring in front of the lens was added with notches to restrict the max. range of AF. And note: that version of 80-200 does not have the internal focus!

[petermarrek]

I had the 80-200 for 12 years, great lens, not much to complain about, on film or on a D2x. Then I purchased the 70-200 for the VR. The lens appears to be slightly sharper, discounting the VR. In the real world, other than VR, not a lot of reason to upgrade. On the D3x I have not noticed any shortcomings with the 70-200 but I don't shoot many brick walls or newspapers. Peter

[Photoworks]

I had the 80-200mm for 10 years, and now I replaced it with the new 70-200mm VRII.
For me it's a big step forward, the VR, the AF-S, the even better sharpness and bokeh make it a joy to work with, the results are stunning!
If you have the money to spend, buy it, you will have no regrets!

[marimagen]

Thank you for your comments. It's always scary to invest so much money in a lens when you think that even Nikon can mess up. I'll check the "new version" then, the MkII.
Marie