differences between 80-200mm f/2.8D IF ED and 70-200mm f/2.8G VR IF-ED

[ceichrodt]

I'm looking into getting a new lens for my D90 and I've decided to go with either the 80-200mm f/2.8D or the 70-200mm f/2.8G. I know that the 80-200mm does not have the VR like the 70-200mm. What's the real difference between the two? Will either one work for racing and general sports photography?

[bigben6]

As i understand it the 80-200 does not have in lens focus motor, so if you bought it you would be forced to replace your D90 with something that has an in body focus motor. As stated it does NOT have VR, but is 1/2 the cost. The 70-200 is AF-S, has VR and over 2x the cost.

Reviews seem to say the IQ on the 70-200 is a lil better but for the price.... i know i would be VERY curious about the 80-200.

[zona5101]

Sure, either will work fine. So why do you need f2.8 and not need VR?
Maybe the 70-300would be fine if you have plenty of light.

[MindyRaeL]

The D90 does have a focus motor, so the 80-200 will autofocus with it.

Ultimately, the difference is one has VR and one doesn't, and of course the huge price difference. If you're going to have plenty of light and are able to keep the shutter speeds up, or don't mind using a tripod, then the 80-200 should be fine. But if you're thinking you will be trying to handhold in low light, then the VR is worth it.

FWIW, I have the 80-200, and it's a heavy beast. I can handhold it for a short period of time, but most of the time I use it on a monopod or tripod because it's so darn heavy my arms shake like crazy. It's super sharp and I love it, but it's seriously heavy.

[ceichrodt]

I currently have the 70-300, would prefer to use something a bit quicker. The past couple of boat racing seasons I have staked out a spot on the shore where I'm able to sit down and brace myself against a wall and use my thighs to steady the lens. So the weight of the lens wouldn't bother me as much.

[zona5101]

"quicker" as in focusing speed? The focusing speed of the VRII will smoke 80-200.

[ptremb3043]

there is an af-s version as well, it's just not as available or discussed as much as the af versions as the 70-200 came out with vr and people went straight to that lens for obvious reasons. the cost of the af-s version is just under to about the same price as the 70-200 vr on the used market for a clean unit.

[sk66]

IMO neither will work particularly well for racing and general sports photography. They are too short.
IMO, yo need at least 300mm (generally) on a crop body and 400mm on an FX for most sports...unless you are on the sideline and photographing only what is close.

Now, my 70-200 VRII with a 1.4 or 2x (and good light) can do a decent job.

If you are on a budget I would suggest one of the super zooms like the 50-500..you will just be stuck requiring decent light.

[ccting]

How about Nikon 400mm f/2.8?

[gturner]

Originally Posted by ccting

How about Nikon 400mm f/2.8?

are you handing out loans?