Adam E. J. Squier
(K=9803) - Comment Date 5/31/2005
|
The 70-200 is a better lens. The VR is fantastic, and going a little shorter is more versatile. It also focuses a lot faster with the AFS. Of course, the lens is twice the cost of the 80-200, so if cost is an issue, you need to keep that in mind.
|
|
|
|
radz photo
(K=230) - Comment Date 6/3/2005
|
I second Adam suggestion ,VR lens is best,fast AF-S.
|
|
|
|
Bobbie C.
(K=1425) - Comment Date 6/12/2005
|
You should consider how you shoot. If you're handholding most of your shots, the VR is great. When you're on the tripod, you have to turn the VR off anyway. If you mostly use the tripod, the extra expense of the VR feature is wasted. Short answer: handheld, 70-200 VR; tripod, 80-200. Both are good, sharp lenses.
|
|
|
|
Mark Jones
(K=458) - Comment Date 6/13/2005
|
I do not have the 70-200mm vr, but I do have the 80-400mm Vr and the 80-200 AF. I love both of these lenses. Both are sharp and rich. The VR was very useful for me on long range shots without a tripod. I have seen images from the 70-200mm and it is very sharp as well. In my humble opinion, you cant go wrong with either one. If I had the cash, I would go for the 70-200mm.
|
|
|
|
Nezih Dagaslan
(K=0) - Comment Date 6/30/2005
|
Thank you all friends. Finally i got my nikon 70-200mm vr, now i am very happy with it.
|
|
|
|
