DSLRUsers.com

I noticed that the Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR is the only zoom that Nikon makes which has a AF-S, VR and 2.8, no wonder it's such a popular lens.
This got me thinking, if you only had a choice of only one of those features, which one would you choose.
In other words, which is more valuable to you AF-S, VR or 2.8.

Can't go past 2.8, it can compensate for lack of VR.

Wouldn't that mean that VR can also compensate for lack of 2.8?

Constant f.2.8 is alway the winner in this range of lenses.

I would agree 100% with Glen - I have the 70-200 Sigma and to be totally honest I am not missing VR - mind you I can’t miss what I have not got

Yes, what is the VR for. Otherwise legs are required.

Philip, VR cannot give limited depth of field, but 2.8 can give high shutter speed to counter vibration.

Constant 2.8 on a zoom for me is the most important

2.8 (or lower) AF-S then VR but i wouldn't pay more for it at this point

nodabs wrote:2.8 (or lower) AF-S then VR but i wouldn't pay more for it at this point

Talking on this range of 70-200 zoom lens, no one has or manufacture the f less than the 2.8 atm

I'm with the masses on this one. Sure the VR would help you go beyond the limits of whatever your Fstop is - there is more to the constant and fast aperture. A faster lens is great to help in low light and it also gives you more control over DOF (something the VR can't help with)

2.8 wins. AF-S should be on all lenses & VR is brilliant for most lenses.

Yep, constant 2.8

But you have overlooked one very important feature of the 70-200: Build quality.

I love the internal focus and zoom... and it is a solidly built lens...

MHD wrote:Yep, constant 2.8

But you have overlooked one very important feature of the 70-200: Build quality.

I love the internal focus and zoom... and it is a solidly built lens...

If you see the Sigma and you don't need VR then you will love it! The built is better or same.

Or go after the Nikon 80-200, still reigns the place.

I've choosen zoom+VR and got 80-400VR for myself. It's not perfect but it's really good especially when light is bright enough

Yes, the 80-400 is with VR but we're talking about the zoom lens with f.2.8.

Or go after the Nikon 80-200, still reigns the place.

I second that. I love my 80-200 2.8 AFS and take it everywhere! I really apreciate the AFS after using the AFD model for a day. No off puting vibration during focusing and ultra fast/quiet.... and of course you simply cannot beat the f2.8!

I can't comment on the VR option since I've not used it before but from all acounts it definately has the cool factor. It's on my LLL (lens lust list).

Mikhail, out of PhilipB original choices that is one you chose VR with no AFS or 2.8. Mind you, this is apples with oranges, as the 80-400 offers twice the range for a lesser price. A lot of good shots come from this lens, many of Gary's in particular are memorable. Wish I could afford one as a spare.

You're right and not right. Subject is Let's talk about lenses. Doesn't say anything about 2.8

And question was which is more valuable to you AF-S, VR or 2.8 I think there are 3 choices in this question. So, I just mentioned that my choice was VR for long zoom but 2.8 and AF-S in this case weren't too important to me

Sorry, if I misunderstood the question

Birddog114 wrote:

MHD wrote:Yep, constant 2.8

But you have overlooked one very important feature of the 70-200: Build quality.

I love the internal focus and zoom... and it is a solidly built lens...

If you see the Sigma and you don't need VR then you will love it! The built is better or same.

really... Who has it? Might have to make time to come to another Sydney meet some day!

Yes, I have both 24-70mm EX APO f2.8 (noisy but it is not HSM on par with non AFS I guess) and 70-200mm Sigma EX HSM f2.8 build quality is excellent. I have one from two yeras ago and it is as quite and just a tad slower in the auto focus than AFS ED 70-200mm (I have been told, from a Nikon Freak "not from this forum" ).

One question on HSM and AFS

Does HSM (Sigma) = SWM (Nikon) only or does........

HSM = SWM = AFS ???

And what is the advantage of AFS over AFD if different (in particular to matrix metering)?

Sorry Mikhail, if I seemed blunt, just trying to categorise your answer into Philips three choices. Didn't mean to offend.

MHD, sirhc55 has one, really nice piece of kit and half of a VR at the moment. If I was making the decision today between the two, I would think long and hard between the two. Would probably still chose the VR model as I tend to keep my lenses for twenty years, so can amortise the cost over a longer period, plus that nagging doubt "Would I have got that shot with VR?". Twenty years is too long to have a nagging doubt

Glen wrote:Sorry Mikhail, if I seemed blunt, just trying to categorise your answer into Philips three choices. Didn't mean to offend.

No offence at all. I was trying to clarify my thoughts about lenses, compromises and life, which is full of compromises

ipv6ready: yes HSM (Sigma) = AF-S (Nikon) = USM (Canon).

ipv6ready wrote:Yes, I have both 24-70mm EX APO f2.8 (noisy but it is not HSM on par with non AFS I guess) and 70-200mm Sigma EX HSM f2.8 build quality is excellent. I have one from two yeras ago and it is as quite and just a tad slower in the auto focus than AFS ED 70-200mm (I have been told, from a Nikon Freak "not from this forum" ).

One question on HSM and AFS

Does HSM (Sigma) = SWM (Nikon) only or does........

HSM = SWM = AFS ???

And what is the advantage of AFS over AFD if different (in particular to matrix metering)?

Yes HSM=SWM=AFS= Ultrasonic motor built into the lens itself
=fast quiet focusing

AFD=Lens is moved by the servo motor in your cam (yes the D part does mean distance info is sent to the cam but that will be the case in most AF-S lenses..

Glen: yes but how much cheaper is the Sigma... might have to go look at the lens lust thread...

Not that my next purchase is soon... more than likely waiting for the tax man for that one.

lpv6, AFS means motor in the lens (obviously matched to the size of glass it is moving) which is usually fast, AF means using the motor in the camera (pro cameras like D2X have bigger motors than D70) which is slower especially with big glass like 300 2.8 and bigger. AFD is the same as AF the D refers to distance information which is transmitted for use by the flash. Most lenses have been AFD for about ten years. AFS is also much quieter, it also works by the electrical contacts, AF is noisier, it works by a screwdriver sticking out of the camera body and turning a thread (worm drive) in the lens. If you take your lens off your camera and look at the 7 o'clock position on your lens mount you can see the little screwdriver sticking out.

Less than half MHD!! If VR wasn't a priority you would have to consider the Sigma. You could buy a 12-24 and 50 1.4 with the difference. Or if money was tight it is great value.

Glen wrote:Less than half MHD!! If VR wasn't a priority you would have to consider the Sigma. You could buy a 12-24 and 50 1.4 with the difference. Or if money was tight it is great value.

Or the Nikon 80-200/ f2.8

Very true Birddog, that is very true...

And what is the advantage of AFS over AFD if different (in particular to matrix metering)?

Hi ipv6ready.

The main advantages of AFS over AFD in the 80-200 lens that I noticed were faster reaction times in auto focus. Less time spent hunting around for the correct focus. Much smoother and quiet auto focus... the AFD IMHO just sounds like the motor of a toy car in comparison and scares away nervous subjects. It also jolts the camera with a torque effect as it focuses. The 80-200 AFS has automatic manual overide so no levers to switch between AF and manual modes. The AFS can be used with the TCE converters while to the best of my knowledge the AFD cannot. The AFS version seemed to produce a sharper image with improved contrast over the AFD and contains an additional ED element.

No difference in matrix metering on the D70.

Having said all this the AFS version is about $500 more expensive. After reviewing the second hand market I found that the average price was $1,500 while the AFD was around $1000 depending on condition.

agriffiths,
I'm sure TCs can be used with the AF-D 80-200.

Just to sound like some anal gear nut (who me?), the new TCe will work with 80-200 if you remove one tab, the old ones work as a matter of course. Most non Nikon work as well.

TCe only work with AFS or AFI, but removing a tab frees things up.

Yeah I'm pretty sure that the AFD didn't work with the TCe. I've been wrong before though.
Interesting idea about removiong the tabs though. Will recommend this to the guy I borrowed it off.

As Birddog would know (hmmm...) when time came to make a decision I opted for the Nikon instead of the Sigma only because of the VR, and I still get blur pictures (more so with TC ). At least I have peace of mind, but to answer the question, it had to be constant f2.8 and AFS and then VR.
Gerard