80-200 ED vs 70-200 2.8 vr1 Sep 14, 2016 I recently purchased a Nikon 80-200 2.8 ed paired with a nikon d500 to shoot high school football If you are wanting to hear the 80-200 is same as 70-200 but without vr and people are wasting money spending the extra for vr when you get such wide aperture well you heard it from me, but let me tell you the extra is totally worth. if can't always carry a tripod and for a zoom lens of this magnitude vr is a must have
The 70-200mm f4 VR is better in every way over the 80-200mm 2.8 except in aperture and build quality. Realistically though, the f4 lens will probably perform better on your D7100. It's in the top 5 of sharpest Nikon telephoto zoom lenses. drr153 The 80-200 should be substantially cheaper than a new 70-200f/4. I bought the 80-200 f/2.8 in 1999 and have been using it ever since, including with my D800. It's a great lens. While you might have had other options in that focal range, you should use it a bunch and see how you feel about it The Nikon 70-200 F2.8 VR II is an amazing lens (note that there are two model 70-200mm VR models, an older model and a new updated model). The F2.8 model is used widely by both enthusiast and professional photographers alike. It's among the best telephoto zoom lens out there ✖ Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 80-200mm F/2.8D ED ✔ Tamron SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD It comes with a lens hood so that you don't have to buy it separately. These are used to block strong light sources, such as the sun, from the lens to prevent glare and lens flare
Oct 11, 2012. #3. Had the newer two-ring Nikon 80-200 f2.8 AF-D. And Image IQ-wise is nearly identical to the 70-200vr. Tho many mention the superior coatings of the 70-200 for a tad better contrast and color retention. The AF-S is going to be about twice as fast as the AF-D Nikon's 2-ring Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8D ED AF Zoom Nikkor Lens would use the D7100 and D610 in the camera screw-drive auto focus. 80-200mm f/2.8 Lens Review by Thom Hogan Having used it as a workhorse shooting an adult soccer league I can recommend the Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 Of all of the 70-200 f/2.8 and similar lenses I have used to date, the Nikon 80-200 f/2.8AF - specifically the original push/pull version from the late 80's - stands out as a clear winner when it comes to a balance of terrific performance and affordability All Nikon 70-200mm and 80-200mm f/2.8 lenses compared. See also the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 VRthat works about as well for less than half the price I talk about what I like and don't like about these two lenses
Angry Photographer: Nikkor 80-200 2.8 VS. Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC. Which is best? BOTH AR Nikon's 70-200 has been developed for full-frame cameras and I'm not aware of a review that claims it's a step down from its immediate predecessors -- the various incarnations of the 80-200 were bread-and-butter lenses for the pros with highly acclaimed IQ (on 35 mm film, of course) nikon 80-200 2.8 vs sigma 70-200 2.8 Started Mar 30, 2010 | Discussions thread Forum: Parent: First: Previous: Next: Flat view: fallguy2005 • Forum Member • Posts: 77 Re: nikon 80-200 2.8 vs sigma 70-200 2.8 In. The 80-200 f/2.8 AF-S is supposed to be better on full frame apparently. I think the 70-200 VR would be my top choice, actually given the prices of the 80-200 variants I'd be inclined to look at the new Tamron 70-200 and the Sigma 70-200 as both come in and around the AF-D pricing as opposed to the 80-200
But used to cover actions sports, the 70-200 VRII nails many more shots than the 80-200 D did. The 70-200 VRII is a great lens, my only complaint is the lens hood. It gets knocked loose too easily. When shooting football, my main lens is a 400, with the 70-200 on my back up body, hung by my side Nikon 80-200 2.8 vs Sigma 70-200 2.8:-----I was convinced by reviews and a pro photographer friend to purchase the Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8 instead of the Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8VR and never even seriously considered a Sigma (or Tamron). Having handled a borrowed few, the only third party lens I have bought is a Tokina and I have another Tokina on pre. Re: Nikon 80-200 vs 70-200 VR vs tamron 70-200 In reply to PhotoFredy • Apr 22, 2009 Looks I might buy tamron AND rent 70-200 VR at the same time and see the differences .1 #6 ·.1 #6 · Nikon 70-200 VR1 versus 80-200 AF-S If you want to switch to a less expensivero level 80-200 and aren't shackled by the lack of VR, then get the 80-200 AF-D. Still a currentroduct and you won't run into issues later when the AF-S motors are no longer available for the AF-S 80-200 lenses We then ran another test on his new Nikon 80-200D f/2.8 ED (with tripod collar) vs my one year old EF 70-200L f/2.8. Setup is as follows:- Cameras EOS1n and F5 triggered with cable release, using mirror lock. Fuji Velvia rated at ISO 40 (we agreed that's truer to its real speed)
My choice was not this vs. spend $2000 more on the 70-200 VR, it was this or a 70-210 f/4. I have been very happy with this lens on both film & DX digital bodies. reviewed January 19th, 2011. While the Nikon 80-200 is slower than the newest Nikon models, that is to be expected. And my choice was between the Nikon 80-200 vs. the Sigma 70-200, and for those two lenses, the Nikon certainly holds it's own. I also believe Nikon's optics to be better than the Sigma's, along with brand recognition and resale
Calumet Photographic: Fachberatung & tolle Angebote. Online oder in unseren Stores. Kostenloser Versand ab 20 €, Top-Service, Fotografie-Tipps im Magazin und mehr 1 mm smaller in diameter. Length. 187 mm vs 194 mm. 7 mm shorter. Reasons to choose Tamron SP 70-200mm 2.8 Di VC USD G2 over Nikon AF Nikkor 80-200mm f2.8D ED. 4 advantages. Focal Length - Wide. 70mm vs 80mm. 10mm wider coverage
LensHero compares the Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II vs the Nikon AF 80-200mm f/2.8D ED to find out which is the winner. Key differences include: focus motor, image stabilization and best pric I looked at the Tamron 70-200 2.8 (I'll let Art wave the Sigma flag as I couldn't find one to compare) before buying and there was no comparison - Nikon wins hands down in sharpness and focus accuracy. No doubt, the 70-200 is the Cadillac, but the 80-200 is a worthy alternative. Ross - ARKreations Photography The 80-200 comes more sturdy as it has a metal body compared to a lot of plastics in Nikon's newer lenses. I noticed the IS on the Canon 70-200 f/4 quite a bit when I used it. Especially when I tried it on my old 40D (long time ago) Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8D ED AF -VS-Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSMI am hung-up on which of the two to get.. The Nikon is well built, F2.8, and bound to keep its value. The Sigma has OS, just as fast, and newer. Nikon 80-200 F2.8 vs Nikon 70-200 F2.8 - posted in DSLR, Mirrorless & General-Purpose Digital Camera DSO Imaging: Thinking of getting a Nikon 80-200 Zoom F2.8 for my Modified D5300 Its allot less expensive than the f2.8 70:200 Anyone have experience with the 80-200? Thanks Gre
Formerly, my main zoom in this focal range was the 70-200/2.8 VR1, and my backup was the 80-200/2.8 AF-S. I had these for many years, but about a year ago I replaced the 80-200/2.8 AF-S with the 70-200/4 AF-S VR. The f4 lens is now my primary choice, and the f2.8 has been relegated to backup Jan 30, 2008. #2. I was having this problem several months ago, and i still haven't made my mind up The general consensus iirc was this: Sigma 70-200. AF and IQ equal to the Nikon 70-200 VR. Build quality not as good as the Nikon 80-200. Nikon 80-200. AF equal to the Sigma 70-200, but IQ superior to the Sigma & Nikon 70-200 Aside from VR, the 70-200 also has an extra 10mm at the wide end and AF-S focusing over the 80-200. Like mjstraughen said, it comes down to if you want all the bells and whistles. Both the 70-200 and 80-200 are great lenses with pro quality performance and build Partiamo dall'inizio lo zoom da 70-200 non è da street, la street si fa al massimo con il 35mm (sulla tua APS su 24x36 massimo 50mm) con ottiche più lunghe farai altro, bellissime foto sicuramente ma non street, userei per la street il 35 che mi sembra perfetto. Nikon 80-200 AFS ha il motore interno ma te lo sconsiglio perché essendo stato.
New 70-200 sigma (nikon) or 80-200 nikkor? Which is better? thanks Added (1). Thank you @yes I hope to you it as more as possible and @the 80-200 hasn't vibration control (and is the only one I trie The size and weight on the 70-300 is great for travel. The size and weight on the 80-200 is acceptable for portraits, actually lighter than any other 70-200 or 80-200 minus the 70-200 f4 but it is considered to me to be just a portrait lens. The screw drive is slower on my D7500 than my D800 Discussion Nikon 80-200 AFS 2.8 Vs. 70-200 AFS VRII Author Date within 1 day 3 days 1 week 2 weeks 1 month 2 months 6 months 1 year of Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/0
Length- and width-wise, Nikon's new AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8E FL ED VR zoom (bottom lens in above photo) measures within a couple of millimeters of its predecessor (top lens).The newer lens is also a tad lighter than its predecessor (3.15 lb versus 3.39 lb) even though it contains more lens elements (22 elements in 18 groups versus 21 elements in 16 groups) NIKON D810 + 70-200mm f/2.8 @ 85mm, ISO 64, 1/640, f/5.6. In short, the reversal of the zoom and the focus rings could present a pretty serious problem for those who have had prior experience shooting Nikon and Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 and f/4 lenses. In my opinion, it was a bad decision on behalf of Nikon engineers 23 facts in comparison. Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 80-200mm F/2.8D ED vs Sigma APO 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG OS HS The 80-200 AF-S is exceptionally good optically and can hold it's own quite well even on the D800 and one can still use the current AF-S teleconverters. Yes, it has no VR if thats a consideration but the only thing to watch out for with the 80-200 AF-S is the squeeky AF-S motor issue, similar to quite a few of the Nikon 17-35 f2.8 AF-S lenses The Nikkor AF-S 80-200mm f/2.8 IF-ED, introduced late in 1998, was one of the first AF-S lenses. In fact it was the first zoom lens that featured the then new sonic wave driven autofocus. It was discontinued and replaced by the Nikon AF-S 70-200mm VR less than 5 years after its announcement. In this review we'll have a look at how the lens.
p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · Nikon 70-200 F2.82.8E vs. Nikon 70-200 F4. Elkins45 wrote: I have an AF-D 80-200 F2.8 and I generally leave it in the car in favor of slower lenses. If you're shooting indoor or night sports/action the extra stop is worth the cost and weight penalty, especially if you're getting paid for it Gary B 2 different lenses - for 2 different uses - 70-200 - lighter, slower, VR, AF-S, AF with teleconverter 80-200 - screw drive AF, heavy, faster, better build I would argue that it is better to compare the 80-200 2.8 to a modern 70-200 2.8. or the Nikon 70-200 f4 to the Tamron 70-210 f Instead, Nikon has released new lens in this focal length, such as AF-S VR 70-200mm f /2.8G lens in 2003. In which, IF stand for Internal focusing while VR stand for Nikon's anti-vibration system, while the letter G behind the F number stand for the absent of aperture control on the lens (all G lens are D lens) A shining example of superior NIKKOR optical design, the AF Zoom-NIKKOR 80-200mm f/2.8D ED is a high-performance constant aperture telephoto zoom lens that produces brilliant photos and HD videos across its entire 80-200mm focal length range. Its ultra-fast f/2.8 maximum aperture delivers bright images with beautiful background blur (bokeh) If price doesn't matter forget these lenses and get a constant aperture f/2.8 such as the Nikon 80-200 f/2.8, priced at $1,224.95 or the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 priced at $2,399.95. For the rest of us there are choices that are close, albeit no match. All but the Nikkor's and Tokina lenses from this test are dirt cheap on eBay
I'd always choose the 70-200 over the 80-400 without exception in the overlap range. That leaves only the 200-400 part of the 80-400 as useful to me while still being a $2100 (US) lens. And if I were buying new lenses, the two lens combo of the 70-200 F4 and 200-500 costs only $700 (US) more than the 80-400. ($2800 vs $2100 The AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR is able to take close shots at 70mm but its also perfect for zooming in to capture shots from a farther - unobtrusive distance. Covering all the bases. Stunning portraiture from many angles. The 70-200mm covers all of the most useful portrait ranges; 85mm, 105mm and 200mm Nikkor Lens Comparison for Astrophotography AF 80-200 f2.8 ED vs. AF-S VR 70-200 f2.8 ED; Nikon D90 astromod VS. Nikon DF unmodified; Comet C/2020 F3 (Neowise) Measuring Linearity, Readout Noise and Gain of a ATIK383L+ CCD camera; Using an MGEN v2 Autoguider on a Losmandy mount with 492 Digital Drive Syste
Originally posted 2006-11-27 on Optyczne.pl. Nikon introduced the Nikkor AF-S VR 70-200 mm f/2.8G IF-ED in 2003. After this new market entry, many people were worried about the future of the Nikkor AF 80-200 mm f/2.8D ED, which had already been on the market since 1996 with similar parameters, but no stabilization Canon EF 70-200 f/4L IS USM and Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8 ED Both lies in the price range around 1100 to 1300 $ range at various stores and as per the availabilities.(4L is around 100$ expensive) Primary observation here is that, the Canon 4L has the integrated Image Stabilization and the Ultra Sonic Motor You can also take a look at these similar lenses: Sigma 70-200mm F/2.8 Tamron 70-200mm F/2.8 Nikon 80-200mm F/2.8 Nikon 70-300mm F/4.5-5.6 Tamron 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Reviews This lens has been reviewed at: bythom.com camerahobby.com naturfotograf.com naturfotograf.com #2 photodo.com photozone.d
70mm, f8, 200 ISO, border. Great performance right away in the center from f4.0 on with a very contrasty and sharp image. Center performance peaks at f5.6 while corner performance remains a bit mushy even at f8. Unremarkables at 105mm: Infinity shots with Nikon Nikkor 70-200/4.0G VR on a D800 I guess the trusty (and killer) 80-200/2.8D (one touch) still looks AWESOME for $500-600 used since in my opinion the differences that it has versus the other two Nikon 80-200/2.8D are miniscule. The only bad thing about it is that it is a little slow to focus, especially in older bodies (N6006,N8008,F4). I personally feel lucky An interesting point is that until now (at the beginning of 2013) only 2 versions of the lens of the 70 (80) -200 / 2.8 class are produced - this is a nanocrystalline Nikon ED 70-200mm f / 2.8GII AF-S VR N Nikkor (IF) and this old Nikon ED 80-200mm f / 2.8D AF Nikkor (MKIII)
Nikon AF-D 80-200 f/2.8 vs Tamron SP 70-200 f/2.8. « Réponse #2 le: 31 Mar, 2011, 21:56:43 pm ». C'est le 80-200 f2,8 en AF-S qui est un poil meilleur que le 70-200mm AF-S f2,8 VR1 à pleine ouverture surtout en utilisation boîtier format FX . Ce serait dû à une formule optique différente des 80-200mm f2,8 AF-D et 70-200 VR1 Buy/Sell: Canon Equipment Buy/Sell: Nikon Equipment Buy/Sell: Sony/Konica-Minolta Equipment Buy/Sell: Micro Four Thirds Equipment Buy/Sell: Fuji Equipment Buy/Sell: Pentax/Ricoh Equipment Buy/Sell: Other Camera Brands/Formats Buy/Sell: Other Brands Lenses/Flashes Buy/Sell: Photography Accessories Buy/Sell: Videography Equipment Marketplace Consumers Corner Photography Services Directory. Photoessay-review: the Nikon AFS 70-200/4 VR and Havana cityscapes, part I Review: nikon 70-200mm /2.8 vrii - photography gear, The 70-200mm range staple telephoto lens decades, starting manual focus 80-200mm /2.8 zooms 1980s. latest lens nikon' Old and recent. Nikon has been making 80-200 zooms for the F mount camera bodies since 1969. Indeed, my mint example of the 80-200 f/4.5 Ai manual focus, single ring (meaning trombone zooming) lens is oft credited with putting this focal length on the map, for its performance is outstanding.. I like separate aperture rings on my lenses, because I grew up supporting the lens with my left hand.
Why the 70-200 f/2.8 VR ? Introduced in 2003, this lens was one of the first with Vibration Reduction (VR) in Nikon's lineup. It was a replacement to the long running 80-200 series and had a brand new optical formula Tokina AT-X Pro 70-200/4. FX VCM-S for 850 EUR weighing 980g; Canon EF 70-200mm 4.0 L IS USM weighing a meagre 760g and going for around 1100 EUR. Above left: Nikon 70-200/2.8E VR, above right: Tamron 70-200/2.8 VC G2 . Focus. Focus accuracy and repeatability is critical to consistently produce sharp shots I would say the 80-200. Make certain that the rear lens element is absolutely scratch or mar or anything at all free. The rear lens element is very delicate on all lenses and must be perfect or walk away from the lens. Also, the zoom barrel must t.. Want to add: Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 OR Nikon 85mm f/1.4. More info: I also own a Nikon 50mm 1.4 lens that does wonderful low light work. If I go with the 85mm f/1.4 lens and sell the 50mm lens that makes the prices of both the 80-200 and the 85 the same
This MF Nikkor Ai-S zoom has remained in production until 1990 despite some of the user's attention have diverted to another faster speed MF Zoom-Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8s ED that introduced soon after this zoom lense and also with the emergence of autofocus range of Nikon SLRs and AF Nikkor lenses. Specifications of Zoom 80-200mm f/4.0 . I have the 70-200 and have had the 80-200 (non-AFS, two touch) The AF-S models seem to focus a little faster than the non AF-S. The teleconverters as far as I know, work on all models, although you will lose a stop and a little sharpness
Nikon 70-200 F2.8G VR II 200mm f2.8. The level of distortion is extremely low, but it is not strange, because Nikkor 70-200 F2.8G VR II is a telephoto/portrait lens. You will not see them even at 70 mm p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · Nikon 70-200 F2.82.8E vs. Nikon 70-200 F4 First was a used Tokina 70-200 2.8 , then came a used Sigma 70-200 Both lenses did the job for about 4 months I had them and I was very happy . Luckly sold them for only slight loss My mistake was pixel peeping @ 70mm to compare to my 24-70 Decided to spend a bit more and went to a used but like new Nikon 80-200
Re: Nikkor 80-400 vs 70-200 #22629591. I have the AF-S 80-400G and it has 100% replaced the 80-200 2.8 as I find 70/80-200 on a FF camera of very limited use for aviation. And imho the 70-200 is too big and heavy to make a good lens on a second boy Re: the Sigma, if you looking at the Sigma 70-200 F2.8, then consider the Nikon 80-200 F2.8 also. Third party lens tend to hunt or slower in AF than Nikon brand so when possible, get Nikon brand. User #332373 21 post Nikon 70 200 f2 8 vr1. Nikon first announced the development of the AF-S VR Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF in February 2002, with the lens becoming available to buy in April 2003. Billed by Nikon as a 'compact, lightweight' fast telephoto, the lens features a complex optical design of 21 elements in 15 groups, including no fewer than 5 Extra-low Dispersion (ED) elements for the correction of. AF-ED 80-200 mm f/2.8 Nikkor (various models) 4-4.5: Nikon have redesigned the popular 80-200 ED several times, both externally and internally with its optical formula. The first versions lacked a tripod collar, a feature that was added to the later models, and was a one-touch design
Hi guys looking for advice my Nikon 80-200 2.8 packed in and the choice im thinking about is either the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 or Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 Introduction Announced back in July 2009, the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f2.8G ED VR II is an updated version of its predecessor, the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f2.8G ED VR, featuring a new optical arrangement and updated image stabilization technology, known as VR II.VR II offers up to 4-stops. I picked up a Nikon 70-200 f2.8 AF-S VR II about two months ago to replace my aging 80-200 f2.8. My first impression of this lens is it's absolutely fantastic. Its very comfortable to hold and feels incredibly solid (after all it's a metal body). The fact that it's weather sealed its nice as well a saw this comparison between Canon's 70-200+2X vs 100-400 and wondered how the nikon versions would compare. In the canon version, the 70-200+2X beats the 100-400. However, I have a feeling the Nikon lenses would be different Nikon Nikkor 70-200mm Zoom Lens features VR II Image Stabilization f/2.8G, ED, AF-S (#2185) I previously owned (and reviewed) the 80-200, but I upgraded to this lens a couple of months, and I've shot like crazy since then, lets start: The pros: Impecable performance of the AF, absolutely dead on, if you get OOF images it might be a.
Re: Nikon 70/300 VR AF-S vs. Nikon 80/200 2,8 par peteshifter » Mercredi 04 Août 2010 14:22 C'est un 70-200 que j'ai mais bon, à 10mm près, ça change pas grand chose WP Photography - Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR1 Review (with Nikon TC-20E II) Duration : 10.02 Mins. A video review of my new lens, the Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR and Nikon's 2x teleconverter I know this won't be of too much importance to Canon users, who have enjoyed the amazing performance of the 70-200 f/4 L, (with and without IS stabilization) however Nikon users may be happy to know that they will soon be able to acquire a Tokina 70-200 f/4 as an affordable, light-weight alternative to the weighty f/2.8 telephotos 2. unbelievable resolution 3. stellar bokeh 4. 25%+ approx faster AF tracking 5. Is very lightweight 6. higher T-stop than prior version. Out of countless 100s of lens reviews, this NIKKOR 70-200 f2.8E FL is the ONLY very expensive I've rated as a must-own masterpiece. Kudos to Nikon on this divine optical gem! Its work EVERY penn The Tokina 70-200 mm f/4 VCM is a very good lens, with which every prosumer or professional photographer can make a lifetime's worth of satisfactory photos. Both the build quality and the image quality are of a professional level. Whether the price difference of the Nikon 70-200 mm f/4 IS with the Tokina 70-200 mm f/4 VCM is great enough to.