Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8D vs 70-200mm f/2.8: what matters in real use?
Asked 5/13/2012
7 views
2 answers
0
I shoot low-light events and sports on a Nikon D7000, and I’m considering a fast telephoto zoom to replace an older 55-200 kit lens. The two Nikon options I’m looking at are the AF 80-200mm f/2.8D ED and the AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II.
I understand the basic spec differences: the 80-200 uses screw-drive AF and has no VR, while the 70-200 adds AF-S and vibration reduction. In practice, how much difference do those make for autofocus speed, sharpness, and usability for sports and low-light event work? Is the 70-200 worth the much higher price, or is the 80-200 still a strong option?
I’m also interested in whether third-party 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses from Sigma or Tamron are worth considering compared with Nikon’s versions.
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
14y ago
2 Answers
8
I used that 80-200 for quite a few years, and currently use the first iteration of the the 70-200.
I think the 80-200 is a steal! It's optically very good, built well, and focuses quickly on a capable body. I don't hesitate to recommend it in the least. (Regarding autofocus: on an N65 and D50 it's not slow to focus, but it's clearly not fast. On an F100, D70, D200, and D300 it focuses quickly. I don't know how the AF motor of the D7000 compares.)
The 70-200 is a great step beyond the 80-200. With AF-S it clearly focuses faster, VR is a big advantage, and optically it is also clearly superior. A fantastic lens, and I think it's worth the price. I don't have experience with the current "II" iteration of the lens, but based on other reviews I think it's equally excellent.
Is it worth the price difference? On a great day, shooting in ideal conditions and stopped down, I would say that no the 70-200 is not worth an extra $1300. Want to shoot wide open in difficult conditions with continuous-focusing action with questionable shutter speeds -- go for the 70-200 and you'll enjoy the outing more.
Originally by user8473. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user8473
14y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
Yes—there are meaningful practical differences.
The 80-200mm f/2.8D is widely regarded as a very good lens: solidly built, optically strong, and capable of quick autofocus on a capable body. For the money, it’s an excellent value.
The 70-200mm f/2.8 adds three main advantages: faster AF from AF-S, VR for easier handheld shooting at slower shutter speeds, and better optics overall, especially toward the long end. Community answers also note less chromatic aberration and better sharpness. VR is especially useful at 200mm, though it helps camera shake—not subject motion—so it’s less important for freezing sports action than for static or slower-moving subjects.
On DX, both can work well. If you may move to full frame later, one answer notes the 80-200 can show some corner darkening on FX, while the 70-200 is better optimized for digital full frame.
Bottom line: if budget matters, the 80-200mm f/2.8D is still a strong, practical choice. If you want the best autofocus, stabilization, and optical performance—and especially if you may upgrade bodies later—the 70-200mm is the better lens.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI14y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Is a 70-200mm f/2.8 worth it over an f/4 for wildlife on a Nikon D500?
Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 HSM vs Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8D: which focuses faster on a Nikon D90 for sports?
Is the Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 a good match for a Nikon D7000 DX body?
Which lens should I borrow for an Antarctica trip with a Nikon D3100?
For motorsports on DX, is an 80-200mm f/2.8 better than a 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3 in overcast light?