bump, no thoughts?

So. . . .

question to the group, I'm on the fence between the 80-200 2.8 and the 70-300 VRII

yeah yeah, I know, can't really compare them, and price-wise, I'm torn since the 80-200 is about $1089 new and the 70-300 is about $540 new. . .

I want something that I can actually take around with me (currently trek around a 17-55 2.8/50 1.4/35 1.8/11-16 2.8), and I feel like the next zoom I get will LITERALLY break me.

that's why I started leaning towards the 70-300 (1.2 lbs?). . .since I shoot events with a flash (typically) and landscapes, the 70-300 makes more sense. . .

BUT, 80-200 gives me several stop advantage on the long end, and if i decide to NOT use my flash indoors, I feel like the 70-300 VR might lag. . .

Any thoughts from people?

I currently have $175 in amazon.com gift certificates, so pricing is largely contingent on them (in case ppl bring up buying from vendor x or y). . .

My point is (was) the minor manufacturing variations in camera bodies, lenses, etc may cause your results to be different than mine. My 70-200 is fine an all three cameras, best on the D700, worst on the Fuji S3...might be so sharp it draws blood on your body - not so on mine. My old 85mm f.1.4 is sharper than either of these lenses when tested at the same focal length, f.stop and subject distance.

Your results may vary.

And, sorry - this is a trivial discussion. The real issue should be which lens works best when your editor says, "get the shot or don't come back." If a lens is reasonably sharp, easy to handle, focuses fast and lets you "be there" then it's a good lens - anything less is - well, less.

S

snaketail - I have to combination of d200 and 70-200 and my images are razor sharp, don't see any problems with this body+lens combination

I have both and find that the 80-200 gets used the most. Simply because it is much lighter and easier to carry. I shoot a lot of events and the 80-200 seems to serve me better...it doesn't eat batteries as fast as the VR 70-200. Perhaps the new version of the 70-200 will be better, but I'll rent it before I buy it.

One thing I have noticed:
On a Fuji S3 the 80-200 images are somewhat soft
On a Nikon D200 the 80-200 images are sharp, but the 70-200 are not
On a Nikon D700 the 80-200 images are very sharp and the 70-200 seem sharper than the D200
This leads me to think there are small variations in manufacturing and it shows in crisp details...so what I get may not be what you get - but the 80-200 is still lighter, cheaper, faster handling than the 70-200 and I do get along fine without the extra 10mm and the battery eating VR.

Snaketail

I have shot the Canon 70-200 F2.8 and it was no where near as sharp as my 70-200 2.8VR. I just love that lens, which happens to be in for service, what can I say my rubber hands kind of dropped it along with my D300.

Pete

I don't own either lens, but keep in mind that Nikon just updated the 70-200, so wait until reviews come out to see if the vignetting is fixed yet.

I use the 70-200 2,8 VR with TC 1,4 on a D300 (And previously on a D70) and have no complains at all. It's fast, sharp, a pleasure to use, but it requires some self training to handle it as it should be handled, especially hand-held at the longest focal lengths.

Yes, the corner softness is blown out of proportion. You will only experience that problem on a FX chip, plus it only effects the extreme corners. None of the other 70-200mm ish range lenses will will perform as well as the Nikkor, not even canon's is as sharp.

Personally, I think that both have their place. One could equate them to the AF 50mm f/1.4D, VS the AF-S 50mm f/1.4G. They are targed to two different market segments, with the 80-200 going to the "prosumer" market, and the 70-200 going to the "professional" market.

I have both lenses and prefer the 70-200 hands down. The corner softness is blown way out of proportion and, by the way, the 80-200 has the same "problem". Vignetting is visible on FX with both lenses but unless you shoot landscapes wide open (not typical...) you will never notice it. Again, optically the two lenses are very similar, but the 70-200 shows less chromatic aberration and seems to be sharper to my eye. In addition you get VR.

The 70-200, hands down, is my favorite lens. I actually bought it with nickels, dimes, and pennies I'd been saving for 7 years. (I used up all the quarters for laundry) Who knew I had $1500 in coins in my closet??

I have noticed no vignetting or softness, etc. on my D200, but like you, I've heard of slight issues with FX. Seems like they'll probably update it one of these days now that they have three FX models out there.

What you've really got to decide is whether the AF-S and the VR are worth the extra money. (waiting for non AF-S lenses to focus drives me batty when I'm shooting an event) For me, they absolutely are, but the price difference is significant.

Thanks for the info. (please continue the feedback.) Sounds like Nikon should update the 70-200mm to fix some of the problems. For $1900, it seems like it should not have the corner issues.

If you're shooting DX, I'd go for the 70-200. I had one and on DX it was great. On FX, I didn't like the soft corners or vignetting (I shoot landscapes, so soft corners are unacceptable), so I sold it and I'm going to try the 80-200. From what I can see, it doesn't have the corner problems the 70-200 did, but my copy back-focuses so bad I have to send it back. Even a -20 AF adjustment wouldn't bring it all the way in...

Steve

I haven't used the Nikon 80-200mm, but I was using the two other lenses - and sigma is definitely not an option. I sold it just 3 months after I bought it due to its inconsistency in the area of picture quality. However, the build quality of the Sigma lens is really good, and it's a little bit shorter than the Nikon 70-200 vr. As I'm using DX, the quality of pictures taken with this Nikon is excellent (also with the TC-17e) and the weather sealing is nice too.

Both are awesome with the constant f/2.8 aperture. The only think to really to note, the 80-200mm has noticeable color fringing in high contrast areas when wide open (f/2.8-4ish), and the 70-200mm is soft in the extreme corners when used on a full frame camera. The 70-200mm VR is also overall sharper throughout.

The price difference is worth it if you have the money to spend to go with the 70-200mm VR. The only hard decision would be choosing b/t the sigma 70-200mm and the nikon 80-200mm. The sigma has less purple fringing wide open, HSM focusing and it's built really well. With the Nikon you get the same sharpness, the Nikkor name and it's built like a tank.

I have use all 3 of the above lens' and they all site nicely where they are priced.

They only test on DX though. Since the OP is asking about vignetting problems, I assume they are buying for FX. (If you are buying for DX then vignetting will not be an issue for either lens.)

For lens reviews, I find them tops: http://www.photozone.de/active/news/index.jsp.

Hope it helps.

I've heard good things about both of these lenses, but the 70-200 costs a good bit more. Also, I've heard that the 70-200 has some problems with vignetting. If anyone has opinions about these two, please post them.

I'm most interested in learning more about: sharpness, chromatic aberration, vignetting