Need some imput: Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 - or the older 80-200 f/2.8

[DeepWater]

I have a question for all you experts out there. I have been looking at both of these lenses above and there is a huge price difference. Obviously you do get some bells and whistles (VR, ED glass, nano coating, etc) with the newer lens, but it also costs more that twice as much. You can still purchase the 80 - 200 new from many stores for around 1079.00, the latest and greatest is 2399.00. I shoot a Nikon d300 - I currently have the "kit" lens - the 18 - 200 with the vr and so on - has been a ok lens, but when you throw some glass in front it gets really slow, thus my desire for a faster lens. I am not a pro, but am moving in that direction - would like to shoot more events, etc. and just can't do this well with the lenses I have. I understand that this lens in not a "walking around" lens, and will require a mono-pod or tripod for best results. I would like some feedback from the community regarding these two lenses - my real question being is there enough difference between the two to justify the price? If I go with the high dollar version it means I wait twice as long to get the lens. Your thoughts would be appreciated much Thanks
James

[Manfred M]

I ran through the same dilema about a year ago, and ended up getting the newer 70-200mm, stabilized lens, and the more I shoot with it, the more I think I made the right decision. When I bought the lens, I was shooting with the D90, but was quite confident that I would be moving up to a full-frame camera sooner rather than later. I upgraded to the D800 back in the spring.

While I do shoot using a tripod, the vast majority of my shooting with that lens is hand-held. I tend to shoot as low an ISO setting as I can get away with, so the image stabilization is an absolute must have. While the lens is heavy, I do use it a lot as a walk-around lens, and it is definitely my second most-used lens (after the f/2.8 24-70mm). I have done some experimenting with VR turned on and off, and yes, it really does make a difference in hand-held work.

If you are going to stick with a tripod and monopod, then the 80-200 will work. In my case, I find that even when I am set up on a tripod, chances are that I will pop it off the tripod for a few shots and then put it back. If you are planning to keep with the D300, I think image stabilization is going to be even more important to you, because of the relative magnification that comes from your crop-frame.

[DeepWater]

Thanks for the input - I do not plan on shooting a DX format forever - one reason why I am purchasing all FX lenses in the future, and I also find that the tripod or mono pod is too limiting in some situations. Looks like I may have to suck it up and wait on the lens purchase. I would appreciate any additional feedback from anyone else shooting this lens
Thanks
James

[tbob]

I will try to track down this thread in another three weeks to let you know what I think of the 70-200 f2.8 as I plan to buy one on Sept 8 or 9.

The only reason I am buying the 70-200 rather than the 80-200 is that fact I can use the new 2X teleconverter on the 70-200. I like the extra reach I will get, despite the loss of two f stops with the converter. I considered getting the less expensive lens and a 200-400 but the cost is prohibitive for the 200-400 plus the 80-200. The image stabilization is a nice feature, not the deciding factor for me as I will usually be shooting off a tripod. However the image stabilization is a nice feature I will not mind having. More flexibility which is always a good thing.