Which lens is better 80-400 VR or 70-200VR

[TonyH]

Which is the better lens the 80-400 VR or 70-200VR in terms of sharpness, detail, colour imaging, aberations, for use with a D70.

I want it to be able to semi-retire a couple of other lenses in my kit. I do find myself always wanting to reach closer than the present lenses allow me to do at present.

I'm looking towards Christmas and a possible purchase from either Hong Kong, Singapore or Malaysia (any advice here would be good also). While I am overseas.

Regards

Tony

[daniel_r]

Tony,

I'm looking at doing something similar. From my initial thoughts about this, I'm also asking myself:

* do I need constant aperture throughout the zoom range? (70-200 VR)
* do I need fast glass (70-200 VR 2.8 )
* do I need VR (no? 80-200 2.8 )
* do I need decent focus speeds, ie AF-S or similar?
(no: 80-200 2.8 or 80-400 VR, yes: 70-200 VR or 70-200 Sigma HSM)
* do I need IF (internal focus, no lens tube length variation on zoom)

For me, I'm thinking I have two options:
* 70-200 VR 2.8 with the 1.7 teleconverter
* 80-400 VR and a 70-200 2.8 Sigma (BBJ has this combo, example )

I've seen some impressive shots with both lenses here on dslrusers.

[edit: because I can't type]

[Onyx]

70-200. Sharpest lens I have ever come across - equal with Nikkor pro primes in its range. Absolutely no chromatic aberations whatsoever - even attempted user induced (dark subject against highlight, in the corner). No noticeable drop in optical image quality when shot wide open versus 1 stop down. Supremely fast, superb colour rendition, resolution, clarity, image details, etc. and excellent build.

Also compatibility with Nikon teleconverters which is something the 80-400 does not support (Nikon TCs require AF-S lenses).

The only reasons you'd buy a 80-400 over the 70-200 is if you required the extended reach and are conscious of price (it's half the cost of 70-200), and you're willing to sacrifice f/2.8 constant aperture, AF-S, and arguably image quality.

[birddog114]

TonyH and Daniel_r

You can all have what you wish but again depend on how deep is your pocket and stock availability at the right time of your travelling.

- 70-200VR with TC is none of other to compare.
- 80-400VR is budget lens if you could not fork out the money for the damages of the first above option.

Both of them are good lenses with the reach, especially the 80-400VR, you have justify it with yourself.

[MHD]

Not meaning to sound demeaning but comparing the 80-400 to the 70-200 is like comparing a VW to a porsche

[MHD]

Actually that is a bit mean to the 80-400 more a subaru to porsche as the 80-400 is a decent lens... but just a different class

[birddog114]

Actually that is a bit mean to the 80-400 more a subaru to porsche as the 80-400 is a decent lens... but just a different class

But all will end up in the right hands of the guy behind the viewfinder, the glass won't make its history.

[daniel_r]

But all will end up in the right hands of the guy behind the viewfinder, the glass won't make its history.

As I say: "it's all got to do with the nut behind the butt".


MHD - I think if I throw my 70-300G into that mix, it'd be like comparing a Moke to Porsche

Totally agree - the two features that really stand out for me are AF-S and IF on the 70-200 VR (and thats before you get to questioning image quality).

For the majority of my needs, I'm fairly set on the 80-400. If the 80-400 was AF-S, it'd be spot on. Horses for courses though.

Birddog, whats the availability like on the 80-400? I think the last you mentioned you had a couple on back-order with limited supply. I'm looking at purchasing in the next month or so (and maybe a SB800 to go with it).

[birddog114]

daniel_r,
Next month, perhaps will be OK with the 80-400VR, yes I have few of them in backordered.

[mudder]

G'day,
From what I've seen the 70-200 seems sharper and appears to give stronger colour contrast, also has the benefit of AF-S so the focus would be very fast, the 80-400 is screw-drive focus and is low geared so the 80-400 would be *much* slower to focus in comparison on a D70 and the focus is noisier too (dunno if that matters to you). I ended up with the 80-400 as I needed the reach but couldn't afford the 70-200 + TC (drool). Some people do use the 80-400 with a TC but dunno about how much impact that has. The 80-400 is fine for me but I don't have the skilled eye, using mine mainly for animals chilling.

There's also the 80-400 Sigma with HSM (hope I've got the acronym right) as an alternative. It has OS which is Sigma's version of VR, dunno how it compares though.

Doubt if you'd find a sharper lens than the 70-200, if you splurged on it I think you'd be very happy with it, spose it's whether the 70-200+TC combo is within your budget and also whether you can get one as they seem hard to get unless you're willing to pay top $. Although there's one on e-bay I believe:
http://cgi.ebay.com.au/Nikon-AF-S-VR-ED ... dZViewItem

One of our members was also selling his on e-bay a little while ago, not sure if it's sold or not though...

Cheers.

[leek]

Actually that is a bit mean to the 80-400 more a subaru to porsche as the 80-400 is a decent lens... but just a different class

But that's assuming that you think that a Subaru is a better car than a Volkswagen

[Oneputt]

I have both and use both but you cannot compare them. It is a case of horses for courses.

[gstark]

MHD - I think if I throw my 70-300G into that mix, it'd be like comparing a Moke to Porsche

Throwing the 70-300G is an appropriate course of action. Justr be aware of the litter laws in your area.


Comparing these two lenses is not a simple task. I have the 80-400VR and turn in results that others acknowledge are as sharp as one can expect, and yes, we're talking tack sharp.

The faster speed - both in terms of AFS and aperture - of the 70-200 is not a concern I have; the 80-400 was certainly fast enough for me following the F1 racecars in Melbourne this year (you are free to judge what that entails) but I do have a need for the extra reach, and even with the TC, to 70-200 doesn't cut it in terms of absolute reach.

The bottom line is that you need to determine your needs. Both will help you turn in exceptional results, but you need to decide what the results are going to be.

[Killakoala]

Throwing the 70-300G is an appropriate course of action. Justr be aware of the litter laws in your area.

You get what you pay for.

The 70-200VR is an amazing piece of engineering. I wish i had one.

[TonyH]

Some very interesting comments.. thanks

The problem that I have is this (in the long lens dept.)
I presently have a 70-210 f4 (from my film days) and a 70-300 G series purchased with the D70 as a package (I should have just requested a discount instead).

The 70-210 is quite sharp I'd suggest it is a medium range (quality) lens which I am reasonably happy with. BUT I find myself wanting to use the 70-300 for the range and quite often needing a little more zoom....

I'm finding the softness I encounter may be due to my camera shake (I am using the monopod more and more) and the fact that I am still comparing digital to film. With my work we are always looking for sharpness and registration and unfortunately these traits follow me over into my hobby / passion.

It may appear as though the best option may be buying the 70-200VR and then looking at the characteristics of say a 2x TC. Has anyone got any shots using this medium that they masy be able to email to me to have a look at?

I don't want to appear to be a moaner, but the lens will be a reasonable investment to make and so far with the exception of a couple of prime lenses, I have not been too happy with the quality of my digital images.... To justify that I have gone back and shot few rolls of film to make sure it's not me, and thay have been superb.

[stubbsy]

Tony

The 1.7 TC is a much better match with the 70-200VR than the 2. With the 1.7 you lose less stops than the 2 and only a little less magnification.

[waspo]

Hi Tony,
Not sure what you ar photographing, but check out another members 'website' (alex2k) for a few results using TC and 70-200VR.
http://www.d70users.com/viewtopic.php?t ... c&start=30
Also, check out 'Marli's' images using a 80-200 2.8 with 2x TC.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read. ... e=14710489

Cheers, Jase.

[kipper]

The 70-200VR when combined with the TC1.7 does produce color fringing at times.