Nikkor 70-200 VR vs 80-200

[eMOJO]

I will def check out the new Tamron as part of the decision making process but at circa $400 cheaper than the VRII I would then have to consider it as well.

There has been some mint 70-200 VRI's selling for around the 1k mark s/hand and even less for the 80-200 AF-S which is where I'm at budget wise, hence why I'm trying to compare the two lenses... I must say the discussion has been interesting though and has me thinking outside the box a little.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm too busy now, but when I get a chance(this coming weekend hopefully), I'll post a few images with the Tammy and D800 for ya too.

I don't have the VR1 lens, but I've seen images from well respected photographers that clearly show that the edges of the frame with the VR1 lens are obviously/visibly much softer and mushy than from lenses of equivalent focal length types(on full frame body).

80-200AF-S was one of the comparative lenses and shows a clear advantage once stopped down to say f/5.6. And it wasn't until about f/11-f/16 that the VR1 lens came good.

For an indication as to how this may look in real life, have a look at DPR's test of the VR1 lens ... here

Much appreciated, thank you sir

[arthurking83]

Autofocus motor dead on arrival, misaligned elements requiring return for calibration.. .....

LOL! ..... sounds like some of Nikon's recent offerings!

I have all types, Tamron Sigma Nikon(but not Tokina) and they've all been good. They all have their issues to deal with and occasionally some bad eggs slip through the QCD process.

Anyone that believes this doesn't happen at Nikon or Canon need to get their heads out of the sand to begin with.

What I've read heard and experienced myself, is that (at least with Sigma) .. you will get much better customer support if you experience one of these duds, then you will with (at least) Nikon.

Nikon will apparently fight tooth and nail to prove you have done something wrong, even if the defect is a well known widespread concern!

I didn't follow up on getting my Tamron's serviced(to correct backfocus and focusing issues) .. so I haven't dealt with Tammy themselves, but Sigma will be helpful.

If the new 70-200 VC Tamron comes in at $400 cheaper than the Nikon 70-200VRII, then the better option/choice would be the Nikon lens, but of course we're now referring to high $1K to low $2K mark.

If the Tammy 70-200 VC comes in at low to mid $1K mark, then it'd sound like good value(as long as it performs as expected!!)

[Cage]

B&H have the Tammy listed at $US1499.00. Only Canon mount showing as available.

I guess it will settle down to around the $1100.00+ mark.

[arthurking83]

......

I guess it will settle down to around the $1100.00+ mark.

Sold!! (pending some reviews)

[Cage]

'ere ya go Artie...........

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/ta...s-review-20774

[zollo]

For what little it may be worth, I've owned the 80-200afs and currently own the 70-200 vr2. I would happily recommend the 80-200afs to a friend, if, VR didn't matter to them. The optics and focus were favorably comparable to the 70-200 vr2

[eMOJO]

I've processed my photos taken with the 80-200 AF-S I borrowed and I'm pretty happy with those and they were shot in mixed light (stage lighting) without too many issues, so I think if I can get into one of these for a very reasonable price then it would make a good stepping point up to the 70-200 VRII in the future... time to play the waiting game now for the right one to come up for sale.

Thank you to all that have posted in this thread, I appreciate your thoughts/insights