Nikkor 80-200mm 2.8 vs Nikkor 70-200 VR II?

I shoot mainly sports and candid street photography, I've already done my research on the 70-200 and I know it is clearly superior to the 80-200 but i don't know if I wanna spend double the price of the 80-200 for it. I can't find any good review anywhere about the 80-200 in comparison to the 70-200 or any other party lens sigma, tamron.

You may find this informative. See link. Although the guy is a bit vulgar, he does know a lot about Nikkor lenses.

The 70-200 mm focuses much, much faster than the older 80-200 mm lens

The 70-200 mm lens is one of the most used lenses when shooting sports indoors or under the lights.

Finding a review on the Nikkor 80-200 mm f/2.8 (1998) and Nikkor 70-200 mm f/2.8 VR II (2009) that would have any relevance would be a real challenge. In 1998, there may be rave reviews on that lens, but by 2009, those reviews would become moot

The 80-200 is a fine lens, but the 70-200 will have better quality. The one evil thing about the 80-200: horrible spherical aberration (focus shift) at close distances (20 feet and under). For that one reason, I would steer clear of that lens. For shots far off in the distance, over 50 feet, the lens is fine. To use the 80-200 lens at close ranges, you need to use live view (live view sets the physical aperture while composing which gets around the focus shift problem).

The 80-200 is also an AF lens, so it won't auto focus on bodies without the focus motor (D3xxx, D5xxx, et al).

I have been using the 80-200 lens for 12 years and have to say I wouldn't change it for the "replacement" 70 - 200 VRII./ The 70-200 may be OK for professional but - assuming you to be an amateur or semi-professional - I think you will find the older lens to be cheaper in cost but equal to the "replacement". I have been told by many that the 80-200 lens was one of Nikon's best lenses and anyone owning one should treasure it and use it.

You may want to try Youtube.com -

SEE:

AND: