To start things off, lets say that a 70-200 f/2.8 is completely out of the question.  

Which of these two lenses would you choose and why?


With the f/4 you lose some aperture and with the f/2.8 you lose VR.


Lets hear it!

I have an 80-200 f/2.8 that I bought new back in 1998, or 1999.  It is a wonderful lens, and it is actually sharper than my 70-200 f/2.8, VR (which I sold).  In fairness, I think my 70-200 was a lemon, and was not a representative sample.

Anyway, if you won't be using it for fast action, I would not hesitate to get the 80-200 f/2.8.

Exactly what I wanted to hear. The other plus, correct me if i am wrong, but I believe this 80-200 has an aperture ring so I can shoot it on my film camera (F3).

 

Sell things, trade things, look at the lightly used market if you have to and get the 70-200 2.8

You say it's not an option.

It's the best choice, and whether you get it now, or get it later, you'll eventually end up with it.

I bought mine brand new relatively cheap, here's how: I caught a 70-200 2.8 nikon on sale at B&H and traded in the sigma 70-200(which I also acquired on sale), with the old beaten and abused nikon 70-300 as well to reduce the cash output even further.

Used lenses can be found with good discounts, and many dealers accept trade ins.

Its not an option right now, it will be in 6 months but i would rather have something to hold me over.  My plan is to buy one of the two listed above, shoot with it for the next 6 months then sell it to buy the 70-200 f/2.8 VRII.

 

Yes, it has an aperture ring.

On my D2x (long since sold), it focused very quickly.  On my D700, not so much.

One word of caution.  If you are looking at used copies of the 80-200 f/2.8, be aware that the plastic ring used to switch from manual to auto focus, has a tendency to break.  It's a very common problem with this lens, so inspect it carefully.  Mine does have a small crack in it, but so far it is holding up.  If (when) it does crack, I will get it repaired.


And yeah, if you can swing the 70-200 f/2.8 VRII, that is the best way to go.

Keep in mind that there are three different versions of the 80-200mm. Which one you are looking at could make the difference.

Yes, absolutely.

I'm talking about this one.

For my purposes VR isn't of any real use. In the years I've had my vr1 I doubt I've shot even 1k snaps using the VR. Useless for fast action and useless for high shutter speeds. Good for portraits/weddings in low light though. I'd go the 80-200 since its depreciated in price all its going to and you'll be able to get your money back pretty easily. Have you considered the 70-200-f2.8 vr1?

I have considered the VRI...that might be a good option.

 

Did you look at ebay for used lens?   I picked up a lens very similiar to that a few months ago.   It has the push/pull zoom, tho.    Think it was around 420 delivered.   Got it from a fairly large dealer in Japan.  

Have been very happy with it.

I've been pretty pleased with the Sigma 70-200/2.8 I got used, it's been a workhorse.  Even more pleasing was the price I got it for.

Without knowing what you plan to shoot, I suggest the 80-200 - mainly because it's apparent budget is the limiting factor in this scenario.

Frankly, I think VR in a 200mm lens is very useful unless you're always shooting from a tripod, so if you have the budget, the 70-200 f4 is the better option despite being nearly a stop slower.

However, for about the same money, you can get a new Tamron 70-200mm (also on eBay). For the money, Tamron gives the Nikon model a real run for the money (see DxoMark.com for comparison data).

So many decisions!  Thanks!

 

The Tamron is getting killer reviews on every site that I have looked at. You can find them for around $1400 new.

I just went through this, and after a lot of headache went with the 70-200 4.0.  I'm extremely happy that I did.  

The lens is fantastic, it does not take a bad photo.  And it weighs less than my 24-70

In my opinion, unless you only are going to use the lens for fast moving subjects in low light and you don't have a body that can handle high ISO, the 4.0 is absolutely the way to go.  The only thing I don't like about it is the lens diameter, but that's solved with a step up ring.  

Same here. I have the 2.8 version of the 14-24 and 24-70, but I went with the F4 in the 70-200. Lighter weight, VR, great image quality (used on my D810).



The other consideration is that the jump from 2.8 to F4 will cost you a little bokah if you're using the 70-100mm range for portrait work. That's really the only technical compromise that I regret making. Most of the time, I'm not shooting wide open, but it would be nice to have the option.



 

I have owned the 80-200 AF-D ( most common version by far and also currently available ) , the 70-200 VRI  and current have 70-200 VRII

Also used a 70-200 F4 for trip a couple of times

As already stated it depends what you are using it for

If you are using for low light / fast action the 80-200 AF-D is not a good choice ( the much rarer AF-S is a different story ) . The focus speed is much slower than the 2.8 VRI and 2.8 VRII and F4

Keep in mind , even though F2.8 can give you faster shutter speed to freeze action, you will freeze out of focus action !

If you are using it for portraits ( the 70-200 2.8 is one of my favorite portrait outdoor portrait ) the 2.8 are generally a better choice

Although one would first think that you would give up lots of bokeh and DOF but turn out this is NOT the case

Very interesting read on DOF between the two

https://photographylife.com/nikon-70-200mm-f4-vs-f2-8

Turns out the F4 version of that lens is BETTER for subject isolation on portraits . Who would have  guessed !

If you are doing a bit of both, the F4 is a good choice .  The VR helps with dealing with the lower max SS F4 vs F2.8 for non moving objects .

You could also look for a used 70-200 VRI .....lots of guys have sold theirs to get the VRII  . You can find lightly used ( no pro ) copies around

Bottom line is IMO you would be better served with the new F4  vs the older AF-D 80-200

Ended up with the 70-200 f/2.8 VR 1.  I picked it up for just over a grand and MAN I LOVE IT!  Glad I spent the extra dough!

Pics man. Of lens, shots taken with lens, girlfriend, dog, whatever.

Sunset in the A by Luke Crawford, on Flickr

 
Dome Struck by Luke Crawford, on Flickr

Atlantic Station by Luke Crawford, on Flickr

Metro Headed West by Luke Crawford, on Flickr

DSC_5505 by Luke Crawford, on Flickr

Horsin' Around by Luke Crawford, on Flickr

hands down f2.8

I own the 70-200, and find that I never use the VR...

Hell, I do not even know how to use the VR on it..