70-200 VR or VR II + tele or 80-200 af-s

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon Lenses

70-200 VR or VR II + tele or 80-200 af-s

(10 posts) (7 voices)

Tags:

No tags yet.

guitarvirtuosoab

junior member
Joined: Mar '10
Posts: 7
offline

ok so i'm new to this, been on the rumors site for well over a year, but never signed up. My girlfriend is starting a business (I'm helping out), and as we are starting to get clients, we are looking for the best option for a new lens for half body/face shots. My gut instinct is one of the 70-200 models. I know it's all subjective as to what people would pick when dealing with the downfalls of each, but here are my thoughts...

-80-200 af-s is good price compared, but lacks vr and is still said to have a bit of falloff, although i'm not sure if the falloff kills the sharpness in the corners like the VRI. This right now is my first choice due to the price and the image quality.

-70-200 VRI is cheaper than the II (although the prices seem to be growing together at this point.. VRI going up and VRII comign down). The VR has the correct reach, but terrible corners. So my thought would be to get a 1.4 teleconverter to chop alot of the bad corners for portrait work. Leave it bare for normal everyday shooting where corner sharpness not as much important.

-VRII has great corners and sharpness, but the reach is compromised for close up face shots. So i'm basically in the same boat as with the VRI... get a teleconvert, but in this case to extend the reach rather than chop the bad corners.

What do you guys think? Keep in mind this lens is going to be more for portrait work so it will be stopped down to F8 to F11 most of the time. I'm on a bit of a budget, but i dont' want to skimp either. I have a d300, but definitely would like to upgrade to FF in the future so even thought the corner isn't an issue now, it will be. When i get the money, i plan on renting them, but i doubt i'll find an 80-200 for rental anywhere. so i would like some direction before hand.

Thanks guys.

Posted 3 years ago #
shivaswrath

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 841
offline

VR2 hands down. . .should read bythom.com, he reviews all three. . .

I'm getting the Vr2 (hopefully today!) so I can say just yet, but I think the "reach" issue is only for close quarters. . .so if you're, say, standing back 5 meters, with all lenses at the same distance, the Vr2 should be the sharpest of the bunch. . .

Posted 3 years ago #
Oli13

junior member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 5
offline

I can't speak about the new 70-200 VR II since I only have the "old" VR I, but first question, which camera are you shooting with? DX or FX?
I shot the VR I on my D300, and noticed no fall off (vignetting), whereas on my D700, there is clearly some vignetting (although fixable).
The VR I is a great lens, and I'm sure the new VR II is at least as good, maybe even better.
I agree with shivaswrath, the "reach" should not be a problem either way. If you don't mind the extra expense, I'm confident you'd be happy with the new 70-200 VR II.
Just my thoughts. I would love to upgrade to the VR II, but I just bought my VR I less than a year ago, and I can live with the vignetting, since it's easily fixed in LR.

Posted 3 years ago #
guitarvirtuosoab

junior member
Joined: Mar '10
Posts: 7
offline

Shooting a d300 now with the plan to move to FF as newer FF cameras are released. I'm not worried about the light falloff witht he VRI. That's easily adjusted in many different editing software. I'm more worried about the corner sharpness problems of the VRI, which is virtually unfixable in any software.

The VRII is near double the price of an 80-200 af-s in near perfect condition and more than double a 80-200 af-d brand new. so it's hard to pony up 1200 more bucks for the VRII.. especially for losing some reach, albeit maybe not that much.

Posted 3 years ago #
MusashiX2

new member
Joined: Mar '10
Posts: 4
offline

The falloff with the VRI has yet to bother me all that much. I have used it on my D700 and have always been very happy with the results.

I have seen some VRI lenses go pretty cheap on ebay recently. I even saw a Light Grey version go unsold for $1,650 which really surprised me because that is so rare. I am currently in the process of buying a used one for $1,000 or $1,100 from somebody I know who upgraded to the VRII. I cannot pass up that price. To me, the VRI is more worth it at that price than the VRII.

So I guess what I am saying is I think the VRI is more worth it if you can get a really good deal on it. Save yourself over $600 or so, and that can buy you a lot of film. Oh, wait... :P

Btw, can somebody explain this close-focus issue with the VRII to me? Does it not focus as close as the VRI, or is it still closer except in some situations? I am still confused by it.

Posted 3 years ago #
gelu88

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 295
offline

Since this is studio work the VR is less useful than in other situations. Also the lack of AF-s is not that great an issue for stationary people.

http://www.bythom.com/nikkor-80-200-lens.htm

based on this review. i would get the 80-200.

Just read this:

Compared to the 70-200mm
DX users can pretty much use either if they have a screwdrive. Indeed, I'd tend to say the 80-200mm is optically slightly better on DX than the old 70-200mm, slightly worse than the new one. The only significant tradeoffs are focus speed in some situations and loss of VR.

For FX users, the 80-200mm still turns out to be a pretty good option. It is clearly better in the corners than the older 70-200mm once stopped down, but slightly less good than the new 70-200mm. The real issue for FX users is f/2.8: there's a clear loss of contrast and lower MTF scores wide open than for either 70-200mm. But again, by the time you get to f/4 the 80-200mm is better in most respects than the older 70-200mm on an FX body. Unfortunately, it never quite matches the new 70-200mm. So the old adage "you get what you pay for" comes into play here.

Overall, for half the price you get much of the optical goodness of the 70-200mm lenses, but lose the best possible focus performance, a number of features, and some loss of contrast wide open. It's clear to me why Nikon has kept this in production for so long: it's just a darned good lens for its price. Sports shooters really don't need VR, anyway (they're usually keeping their shutter speeds at 1/500 or above). Event shooters might miss the VR, but they'll like the slightly smaller and lighter physique of the 80-200mm. Just watch that f/2.8: you'll need to optimize both your shooting discipline and your post processing to extract the best images from this lens wide open, as it will fight you a bit with loss of contrast, slight blur, and chromatic aberration in the corners at the extreme focal lengths.

Posted 3 years ago #
SquamishPhoto

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,076
offline

I wouldn't buy any of those if I was going to do mostly portraits like you say you're going to. For a little bit more than the price of the VRII you could buy a 135mm DC and an 85mm 1.4.

Posted 3 years ago #
guitarvirtuosoab

junior member
Joined: Mar '10
Posts: 7
offline

well personally i didn't want to have spend the money on the VRI or VRII if the 80-200s would suffice. I'm really trying to talk myself into not needing the VR. Keep in mind we are starting out so i'm trying to get buy with something very good and very versatile (planning on doing portraits, but i can't say it's the only thing this will be used for), but in a decent budget. The 85 and 135 are both amazing lenses, but sort of limited to portrait work. When(if) we really take off and do well.. those would be two of the purchases to make for dedicated portrait work for sure, then either keep or sell the 80-200. I don't see the 80-200 losing too much value over time. like i said i'm not disagreeing with the quality of those lenses, but i need the most bang for buck i can get so i can invest a bit more in some backdrops/other lighting equipment.

Posted 3 years ago #
SquamishPhoto

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,076
offline

Sounds like the 80-200 is the smart move then. Good luck with your decision! :]

Posted 3 years ago #
NikolaJ

junior member
Joined: Mar '10
Posts: 9
offline

Not sure how long you've been a photographer but I'm assuming not awhile...Unless you're taking a portrait shot of someone on the other side of a mountain there is no need for a telephoto zoom lens. You really don't even need a VR lens since your going to be using a tripod...You should get a 50mm f1.4 instead, prime lenses are a lot sharper and the high f-stop will let you take portraits in differing sets/lighting. Use the money to get a Gitzo tripod or something that you might actually need.

Posted 3 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.

The new Nikon Rumors Forum is now live at http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussions. This forum is now in "read only" mode until I figure a proper way to import all data over to the new platform. Please register over at the new forum.

70-200 VR or VR II + tele or 80-200 af-s

Reply