Lens choice - 70-300 4.5 VR vs 70-200 2.8

[Mule]

Saturday I purchased the Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR. I already have an 18-200mm VR and a 50mm 1.4 for my D80. The 70-300 is fine except slow. I called today and the good folks at the local store are willing to take back the 70-300 to trade it back on a used 80-200mm 2.8 Auto AFS (but no VR) for $1,299. I understand I might be able to get cheaper but I like supporting local stores who provide excellent customer service - and so far this has been the case with this store.

I'd like to pull in tighter shots from a distance. I'd also like the flexibility of capturing motion in low-light options (basketball in a gym, nature shots). In other words, I want a 80-600 1.4 VR for $500. So I'm in a quandry.

Do I keep the 70-300 4.5 VR or is it a step up to get the 80-200 2.8?

[MB1]

For the kind of dough you are talking about you could almost buy a newer body with a lot better low light/high ISO performance.

You already have a pretty good 200mm in that 18-200VR so you really have little to gain with a non-VR 70-200 even if it offers 2.8. What you will gain in F-Stop you are likely to lose with the lack of VR.

Can you rent it before you buy it to see how it works for you? If not, I'd say don't bother.

[another view]

a used 80-200mm 2.8 Auto AFS (but no VR) for $1,299

Sounds like a lot of money for an almost five year old lens, considering that the newest version with VR isn't too much more than that. I mentioned this one other time today and have no inside info (nobody does) but Nikon may have a rebate program coming up for the holidays. If you want to get an f2.8 lens, see if you can hold out a little bit and get the new VR lens if you're already spending that kind of money.

Do you need it? Well, that's another question! I haven't shot with the 18-200 but heard very good things about it. You'd gain two stops with the faster lens and even without VR that may come in handy in a lot of cases. Even at f5.6 the DOF is pretty shallow at 200mm and a fairly close distance, but f2.8 is a lot more isolating. Also, VR won't stop subject movement so those two stops could help a lot with sports - but the question is, will it help enough? You're not gaining any focal length that you don't already have, but still there could be some good advantages based on what you're shooting.

[freygr]

At $1299 it is over priced! When new from ProPhoto in Portland OR or B&H Photo is only $915 or at B&H gray market $810. Link: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...8_ED_AF_D.html

That is the lens you need for indoor arena's and I've been mad at my self for two years now for not just buy it when I had the cash in hand.

[another view]

Link: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...8_ED_AF_D.html

This isn't the same lens - the one in the link has been around for several years (10 or so?) and is still produced. I have it and it's excellent but no VR or AF-S. About 5-6 years ago, they introduced an AF-S version of this lens which is the one for $1299, but I still think that sounds quite high. Couldn't find one to compare at KEH or MPEX though. The AF-S version was discontinued when the VR (actually AF-S VR G) came out a few years ago.

And before the lens in the link came out, there was a push-pull version. I haven't tried them all but the f2.8 lenses in this range have always had a reputation of being very good lenses.

[Mule]

Thanks for the discussion. I'll use what I have for now - and avoid the excuse that "its the lack of a lens". Develop those skills, right?

MB1 I need to explore your suggestion of renting. I bet they would.

[deckcadet]

I'd suggest you return it. They have to have a plain old return policy, don't they?

For that money you could almost buy a 70-200 VR.

I picked up an 80-200/2.8 AF-S model just like that in pretty good shape for $800 this past month.