Nikon AF-S 70-200 VR vs Nikon AF-S 80-200 vignette

04/13/2011 04:38:32 AM · #1

In real world practice, what sort of impact do you see in the vignetting from the 70-200 VR, specifically on FX? I can't seem to find much info about this on the 80-200 AF-S model, and to complicate issues, some have also said that the reports on the 70-200 are really overblown and not that big of a deal in real world practice, but only really come into play when you're staring at test photos made to exacerbate the problem. Anybody used both?
I'm looking mostly at the vignetting, but are there any other differences you've noticed between the two (beyond VR... duh)?
I'm not considering the VRII at this point, due to price.

Nikon NIKKOR Z 24-120 f/4 S

04/14/2011 01:00:17 AM · #2

Really....? Nothing...?
Bump....

bassbone

Nikon Z8

04/14/2011 05:36:22 AM · #3

I have the 80-200 2.8 and really like it from an economic point of view - the quality of image is really pretty solid and most of the time I am not worried about not having VR, but I have used the 70-200 2.8 VR1 and find the 70-200 to be a bit sharper, a bit less fringing, and overall a fantastic lens.

Both are heavy, well built and fast focusing, but the 80-200 is 'old' technology.

hanserik

Nikon D700

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VR DG IF-ED

04/14/2011 06:28:44 AM · #4

Take a look at the 70-200 f/2.8 shots here. Unfortunately, the site hasn't tested the 80-200 on FX.

If you look at the vignetting data on DX cameras for the lenses
80-200
70-200
the 80-200 will have less vignetting on 200mm, but more on 70mm. At least in theory. If it's noticeable outside the laboratory, I don't know.

Nikon NIKKOR Z 24-120 f/4 S

04/14/2011 06:47:12 AM · #5

Thanks for the input guys, but I'm looking for info on the AF-S 80-200. Part of the problem is that while there is a ton of stuff on the various 80-200's out there, there seems to be the least on the AF-S version (for my needs I really am sticking with AF-S only). It looks like they're decently different, optically, as well.
ETA: The info regarding the 70-200 is nice though... leaning more towards that as it's somewhat less of an unknown, at this point...

Message edited by author 2011-04-14 06:47:45.

bassbone

Nikon Z8

04/14/2011 07:00:26 AM · #6

Didn't realize that you needed an AF-S lens. Is the reason you are buying the AF-S is that you are putting this on one of the cameras that can't autofocus the AF lenses?

From what I have read, the optics are very comparable and the price of the AF 80-200 2.8 D is cheaper by a couple hundred bucks.

Message edited by author 2011-04-14 07:02:22.

hanserik

Nikon D700

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VR DG IF-ED

04/14/2011 07:08:25 AM · #7

Duh... didn't register the -S there...

But after a quick google I found this: //nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=1036

04/14/2011 07:29:38 AM · #8

Originally posted by bassbone:

No worries, I was expecting it, since it's not all that common of a lens.
As for why AF-S, it's because I'll largely be using it on quickly moving objects, potentially with things getting between me and the subject. While the D300's tracking is pretty good and tuneable to this sort of thing, I need to not only have quick focus speed but also be able to fix it if it messes up without having to flip the switch. I can also see the focus lock buttons being pretty useful, as well.

I don't have definitive yearnings for FX yet, but I don't want to drop the money on something that I find the vignetting THAT horrible on, either, should I go that route. And while I have the money to swing a VRI, a VRII would be stretching things a bit and for an increase in performance I'm wondering if I need. VR isn't all that important to me anyway, and it seems like that's a huge part of the price for the II.
Thanks for the NR thread, Hans. Hadn't found that one yet.

Dphoto

Nikon D800

04/14/2011 07:41:51 AM · #9

I don't know if you have seen this but it's a pretty good review of the 70-200.

//mansurovs.com/nikon-70-200mm-vr-ii-review

citymars

Nikon D700