I have a Nikon Zoom-Nikkor 80-200mm F/2.8 IF ED AF-S D which I am looking to exchange for Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II Lens.
Is it necessary. I'm thinking I need the VR. I could not find any review comparisons.
I shoot with a D700 and do alot of Landscape shooting.
Is there an upgrade difference (VR aside) in that the VRll will work better on digital FX as the prior lens was made for film days.
#1. "RE: Is this an upgrade?" | In response to Reply # 0blw Nikonian since 18th Jun 2004Tue 08-Jan-13 11:42 AM
The newer lens is a bit better in the corners, and it apparently has less corner fall-off too. I have the 80-200 AFS and have shot it extensively (> 30k frames) on FX and really never found anything to complain about. I upgraded to a 70-200 VR-I only because one came near at a very attractive price. I rarely missed the VR with the 80-200, as I mostly shoot sports with it, where the shutter speed had to be high enough to be amenable anyway. Certainly nobody has noted - even here - "hey good thing you upgraded that one" based on the results.
I would think with landscape work you'd have the same experience, only that you'd probably be shooting slow enough that you'd be on a tripod with either lens.
Of course, the VR-II is a superb lens. I seriously doubt that you'll be disappointed if you get it. On the other hand, I do wonder if you'd find it worth the $1400+ that it will cost to do the upgrade. You can probably sell a mint condition 80-200 for $1000, and the VR-II costs $2400.
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member
My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!
#2. "RE: Is this an upgrade?" | In response to Reply # 0gpoole Nikonian since 14th Feb 2004Tue 08-Jan-13 12:52 PM
I have the the 80-200/2.8 AFS. I also have the 80-200/2.8 AFD two ring. I have never used either version of the 70-200/2.8 AFS VR.
I've used both my 80-200s for a lot of landscape, other nature, college ice hockey and high school football. I've done this with both DX (D300) and FX (D4 & D800e). The landscape and other nature work has been almost completely from a tripod in the middle aperture ranges. The sports shots have been handheld or from a monopod wide open with shutter speeds of 1/500 or faster.
I've found the AFS 80-200 is slightly sharper than the non AFS version. The 80-200 AFS gives me very sharp landscape images from the D800e, even when I print them at 12x18 inches and above. For my shooting style I don't need VR as my low shutter speed shots are from a tripod and my sports shots are at shutter speeds that make VR unimportant. I've never found any reason to upgrade to the 70-200/2.8.
The only upgrade I've considered is the Sigma 120-300/2.8 to give me a little more range for football.
For landscape shooting I would get the new 70-200 f/4 VR Nikkor instead of the f/2.8. I doubt you would miss the extra stop and you would have a smaller lens that would be much more comfortable to handhold.
Gary in SE Michigan, USA.
Nikonians membership - My most important photographic investment, after the camera.
D4, D810, D300 (720nm IR conversion), D90, F6, FM3a (black), FM2n (chrome)
YashicaMat 124, Graflex Speed Graphic 4x5
My Nikonians Gallery & Our Chapter Gallery
#3. "RE: Is this an upgrade?" | In response to Reply # 2SonjaM Nikonian since 06th Feb 2010Wed 09-Jan-13 02:11 AM
Thank you for your sound advice. You're right, mostly I use a tripod and as I am very happy with my War Horse, but didn't want to feel I was missing shots due to lens not performing it's best on digital. I rented a VRll for a weekend and it was beautiful, but I still wasn't convinced I needed it bad enough.
Now what else can I spend $2000 on?