I did some searching and couldn't find good answers from people who have used both the Nikon 70-200mm VR1 lens and the new VR2 lens. Hope you guys can answer:
1. Is the VR2 version that much better than the VR1 in terms of how the VR acts (how slow you can hand hold, how many f stops is the VR2 better than VR1) ?
2. What's the deal with people saying the VR2 200mm isn't really 200mm? I didn't quite understand that.
3. Is the VR2 version worth $500-600 dollars more than the VR1? I am thinking of using it for either FX and the V1 FT1 adapter.
Thanks for asking this question fusiongt! I was wondering the same thing. The version 1s have been selling on the B/S between $1200-$1500. Almost $1k difference from the version 2 new.
Good review trenchmonkey. Very much appreciated. I was considering either buying the verson 1 or the 80-200 f2.8. I might be spending the extra and go with the version 1 for the VR.
One thing to note is that the VR2 ghosts a fair bit less at 200mm and 2.8 in bright light, and it really is that little bit sharper. Not enough to make me switch from my VR1 given the £700 on top, but if someone offered a swap I certainly wouldn't say no
Yep, I just test drove a VRII with the TC20EIII and I was astonished by the IQ using the TC - killed my 80-200AFS + TC20EIII (both lenses used withing minutes of each other).
I also compared the size of the VRII to my 80-200AFS and effectively they are the same.
My 80-200AFS, though fantastic even with the TC14E, may be finding another home sometime soon. VR on the VRII seemed really solid too.
Thanks for all the responses. Right now I'm using a beat up 80-200 afs lens which I really like but the lack of VR starts to really creep in when the lighting is great, I use TCs, or I put it on my V1 FT1 adapter which turns it into a shake machine. I'll keep an eye out on VR2's
