nikon 70-200 vs 80-200

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by Andrew Hennell, Jan 6, 2007.

  1. Wondering if anyone had comments about either lense.

    the 70-200 has VR, 80-200 doesn't. otherwise almost identical from what
    I can see - both crisp as and 2.8 throughout.

    I was set on the 70-200, but is the VR worth double the price?

    any advice?
     
    Andrew Hennell, Jan 6, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Andrew Hennell

    Mr.T Guest

    What type of subject do you shoot most often? For action shots the VR is of
    little benefit IMO.
    Have you also considered 100mm and 200mm primes, and a tripod? Anything in
    between can be cropped just as well in software, with equal or better
    results to a zoom, in most cases.

    MrT.
     
    Mr.T, Jan 6, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Andrew Hennell

    Pete Z Guest

    Pete Z, Jan 6, 2007
    #3
  4. I should have specified subject matter - horses, mostly jumping/eventing.
    Primes are my preferred option, but limited zoom allows me more
    flexibility from the limited access one has to the circuits.
     
    Andrew Hennell, Jan 6, 2007
    #4
  5. MUCH appreciated :)

    I thought I'd searched out such threads, but obviously missed some good
    ones.

    thanks,
    Andrew
     
    Andrew Hennell, Jan 6, 2007
    #5
  6. Andrew Hennell

    Mr.T Guest

    Well in that case are you sure you won't just be working at the 200mm end
    most of the time, and therefore be better off with a 200mm f2.8 prime for
    less money and better performance?
    Of course it depends on your camera too, is it a 1.5-1.6 crop? If it is you
    will still be switching lenses for those close shots in the paddock anyway.

    MrT.
     
    Mr.T, Jan 8, 2007
    #6
  7. Andrew Hennell

    J.P. Guest

    This ~may~ help.

    http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_00.html
     
    J.P., Jan 8, 2007
    #7
  8. primes are not flexible enough - from one position I can cover three
    jumps or more, but all at different distances. In dressage, 70-200
    gives me good coverage of the arena, a prime doesn't.
    1.6, and yes, I still switch lenses or carry 2 bodies - the latter is
    more likely, with zoom on one and a shorter prime on the other.

    But (I think) the original question was if Nikon VR was worth double the
    money in a lense. No takers?
     
    Andrew Hennell, Jan 8, 2007
    #8
  9. Andrew Hennell

    Mr.T Guest

    Fair enough. (Or you could consider those opportunities to get close ups :)
    I often see people miss action shots because they are still trying to zoom
    and crop.
    Two bodies is my preferred option too.
    Well I did suggest I thought VR was of more limited value for action events.
    In other words it's not worth double the money to me (well the Canon IS
    equivalent in my case) I suggest if you have to worry about the difference
    in cost, then it probably isn't worth it to you either. Of course someone is
    bound to reply that VR/IS is always handy (if cost is not a consideration).
    To which I reply, sure is, and can they please pay the difference :)

    MrT.
     
    Mr.T, Jan 9, 2007
    #9
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.