John DiLeo , Jan 29, 2012; 10:11 a.m.
I have used this lens for a long time and was/am happy with it. The F/4 speed has not been a hindrance, I think.
but, I just cannot handhold like I think I used to. I am considering replacing it with something auto focus.
The lenses in contention are the AF-S 70-300 VR, the AF 80-200 ED/2.8, and way down because of price, the 70-200 VR II.
I have searched the forums and it appears, arguably the IQ of the three lenses is close to equal when apples are compared to apples, i.e. not judging the 70-300 vs the others in sports, low light. Some members disagree with that assessment, but many accept it. No one says the 80-200 is not as good IQwise. So, I know I have to accept the limitation of 4.5/5.6 vs 2.8, but I'd gain lightness and VR II, useful in static shots. But I sometimes find myself shooting these types of shots, and panning and manual focus at the same time is tough. Especially hand held. Tripod or even monopod is not an option because I travel mostly by motorcycle, and packing is a bear.
Sandhill Cranes at Bosque del Apache, NM
(link)
The cost between the two is about $400 difference and that is doable, less so for the $2300 70-200, though I understand it is the gold standard. I would not carry it all day, so weight is not that big a deal, but focusing is, and particularly, speed of focusing. This lens will be paired with a D700. So, absent the other issues of IQ and CA, mentioned by some, is there a meaningful speed difference in focusing between the two lenses on a D700 if as an example, I am shooting big birds in flight, within the reach of 200-300 mm FL? I am leaning to the 80-200, I think, but not at the cost of meaningfully slower focusing.
Other lenses I travel with are the 16-35/4 (LOVE it), a 55mm/3.5 Ai macro and the 24-70/2.8.
Thanks
Wouter Willemse 
, Jan 29, 2012; 10:27 a.m.
In my experience (on a D300), the AF-D 80-200 (the latest 2-ring model) is not all that slow in AF. I believe immediately that the AF-S f/2.8 zooms are considerably faster, but the motor in the D300 and D700 drives this AF-D lens quite fast. The main problem is when it starts hunting; then it becomes quite slow to lock on again. There is a focus limiter on this lens, which is really quite useful, though (as it's especially slow and inaccurate near the closest focus distances). Birds in flight are doable with AF tracking.
I do not have the 70-300VR to compare, but the AF-S 16-85 - similar slow apertures - is slower to AF than the f/2.8 AF-D lens - well, that's how I perceive it anyway. I never measured it scientifically.
John Crowe 
, Jan 29, 2012; 10:47 a.m.
I highly recommend a used Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 ED AF-S. They are readily available in the $900 to $1200 USD range. I used to use one on a D2X for lightning fast autofocus for motor racing and soccer. This lens is very sharp with superb control over CA. Both of these features combined with the fast autofocus convinced me to sell my sharpest ever lens, the 200/2 AI, to pay for it. I never regretted this move.
My apologies but in my opinion the image quality of the 70-300 VR for your purposes would not even come close.
Kent Staubus , Jan 29, 2012; 11:12 a.m.
What you really need is a Nikon 70-200mm f4 VR, but that lens hasn't been made yet. Since you don't use a tripod, I go for the 70-300mm VR lens. The VR really works if you are shooting at speeds less than 1/500s.
Kent in SD
C.P.M. van het Kaar , Jan 29, 2012; 12:27 p.m.
If you do not mind to buy a 3rd party lens , you could also consider a Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX DG APO OS HSM, at half the price of the Nikon 70-200 VRII ..,
OK, it does not have the quality of the Nikon lens, and fully open at 200mm its a tad soft, but you say you do not mind your current F4 limitation, and at F4 its quite sharp.... and at half the $$ you cannot expect the same quality , but its still quit good i think.......
Kent Staubus , Jan 29, 2012; 01:20 p.m.
The Sigma is a great choice, and I'd actually take it over the Nikon 70-300mm VR for what the OP wants to do. The Sigma even has their version of "VR," and a matching 1.4x APO TC.
Kent in SD
John DiLeo , Jan 29, 2012; 01:37 p.m.
Thanks for all the responses...couple of further questions.
>>80-200mm f2.8 ED AF-S<<
does an AF-S version of this lens exist? I see pictures of it on UnNamed's website, but no where else. Searching for it brings up the AF version from 1986, not the SWM version and that is what prompts me to ask about focusing speed of the AF 2.8 D version seen here, which I read is slower, though how much slower on a D 700?
(link)
My understanding, and please correct me if I am wrong, is that the AF-S version is a newer version of the one above? And significantly faster to focus?
I don't understand this:
>>in my opinion the image quality of the 70-300 VR for your purposes would not even come close.<<
Are you saying that the IQ of the 70-300 would not come close to the IQ of the linked picture or to the 80-200? If the former, that would settle my decision tree. If the latter, yes, that could be a concern for me because there are enough people who say it's better that I think I would prefer if, but not at the cost of missing shots because it cannot find focus.
I will look at the sigma
>>What you really need is a Nikon 70-200mm f4 VR<<
that's right. Agree
And I will try them out at a store, but real world and store can be very different.
Thanks again for the advice
Rodeo Joe 
, Jan 29, 2012; 02:29 p.m.
I have the old Ai-S 80-200 f/4, and agree that it's stood the test of time very well.... but it doesn't have VR and it's not outstandingly sharp by today's standards. Below is an example of what optical stabilisation can do for you John. This was taken with a Tamron SP 70-300 VC lens at maximum aperture, 300mm and 1/30th sec handheld. Without VC I'm sure there'd be about one chance in 100 of being able to read that rolled-up booklet, let alone show almost no sign of camera shake. The lower half of the sample is a 100% crop from the top full-frame.
You might also want to consider the Tamron 70-300mm as a contender. The aperture drops to f/5.3 at the 200mm setting, but the excellent VC effectively buys you at least 2 more stops. At like focal lengths the Tamron easily equals the IQ of the old 80-200mm Zoom Nikkor and the 300mm extra reach is well worth having. It weighs about the same as the Nikkor and is perhaps just a bit bigger in diameter. Whereas any f/2.8 lens in the 70-200mm range is going to weigh much more and test your strength handholding it for any length of time.
300mm handheld at 1/30th with vibration control.
C.P.M. van het Kaar , Jan 29, 2012; 04:23 p.m.
John Crowe , Jan 29, 2012; 07:31 p.m.
keh.com currently has four Nikon 80-200/2.8 AF-S lenses for sale.
The AF-S model followed the two touch 80-200/2.8 D AF. When Nikon introduced the first 70-200/2.8 AF-S VR they discontinued the previous 80-200/2.8 AF-S so that it would not pose a threat to sales of the new expensive VR lens. The 80-200/2.8 D AF remains today as a cheaper, but undesirable alternative to the VR II.
Apparently the AF-S is sharper than the VR I but not as sharp as the VR II.
I would find VR useful in rare enough situations to not worry about having it for all my photography. I will take superior optics over the flexibility of VR given the same or even less budget.
