So after searching the forum I found out a couple of threads regarding VRI vs. VRII and the performance difference between them, however, I didn't find much specifically about the performance of VRI on FX, particularly on D600 & D800. Did this lens become obsolete all of a sudden?
I am asking because I didn't know that the 70-200 VRI wasn't optimized for FX! I was always satisfied with my 70-300VR & the 80-200 AF-D but I always had the VRI in mind as a big step up from those due to its VR, AF-S and better sharpness. I finally did the upgrade when I saw one I could afford but then I read (by chance) that most are complaining about the VRI performance on FX. I will mainly use it for indoor/outdoor sports and occasional weddings/conferences, do I have to worry about its performance on my D600? Anyone with sample images to illustrate the claimed vignetting and other drawbacks on a body like the D800 or D600? Also since I am looking for more reach I will probably use crop mode more often with this lens, does this help my case, or should I break the bank again towards a VRII?
The VR II also has the focus breathing issue. When shooting at minimum focus distance the 200mm becomes a 135mm.
Vignetting is an easy fix in post but if you shoot in crop a lot then vignetting doesn't matter as much.
I would say if you can get an excellent condition VR I for $1200'ish I would go for it. I personally have the VR II but got it at a discounted price when I bought the camera body with it.
If you can tolerate a lack of corner sharpness that starts around the 135mm mark, and don't mind some vignetting, it's quite a fine lens on an FX camera. In my experience using it with a D700, its weaknesses couldn't be less relevant for portraiture. Landscape photography on the other hand, brings a greater potential for disappointment.
indoor/outdoor sports and occasional weddings/conferences,
It'll be great on FX for these types of shooting. I used one for 2yrs with the D3/D700...
tack sharp wide open, gorgeous bokeh. Mine pretty much lived at 200 f2.8 for rodeo
and roughstock under the lights and saw it's fair share of weddings/portraits/candids
in our time together. Only 'upgraded' to the VRII because of it's affinity with TC's as I
use it for BIF/wildscapes in the Winter months. Go for one, STILL awesome glass.
I picked one up for $1200 to replace the AF-S model. For sports and portraits, think the VRI works very well on my D600. Have access to a VRII if I really need it, but I would hate to drop that borrowed lens! Biggest advantage the VRII has for me is better operation with the TC17 (have this one) and (supposedly) the TC20III. VR operation is a little smoother on the VRII. All in all, I don't feel like I really need the VRII, but I will get one if I win the lottery.
You should be able to see a significant improvement in center frame overall performance at 2.8 vs the AF-D.
If you are in at $1200, you can always get that back out of the VRI.
Both great lenses. The VRII is indeed noticably better side x side (by about a stop IME) and it also has nicer contrast. Your call. For me vignetting on the I and focus breathing on the II are nonissues.
Thanks a lot everyone! Very encouraging information and I actually went ahead and bought it after reading your thoughts and I am so excited about it So TM, RKB you wouldn't recommend a TC for the VRI? Not even the 1.4?
I am actually between that (getting a TC) or getting a D300 or D7000 for sports shooting for more reach...
I have had my 70-200VR1 for years.... since its second year in existence. Wonderful lens, and never felt the need to spend more money on a newer version. I shoot it on the D800, and I get good results. wonderful solid lens.
In almost a totally unrelated issue. This thread just made me pull the trigger on a TC-17E II. I've waited for months to decide. I have the VRI on both body types and see NO discernible concerns or differences from the II to the I.
I have used both extensively. Pretty amped about the 1.7 now though !
hijazist wrote:
Thanks a lot everyone! Very encouraging information and I actually went ahead and bought it after reading your thoughts and I am so excited about it So TM, RKB you wouldn't recommend a TC for the VRI? Not even the 1.4?
I am actually between that (getting a TC) or getting a D300 or D7000 for sports shooting for more reach...
I have no problems with either the 1.4 or 2EIII on my VRI; except hunting in low contrast; surfing in fog comes to mind (D700 or D300S)
The TC-17 I have is better on the VRI than on the 80-200 AFS that I have. Would call it probably OK on the VRI but notably less good than the prime equivalent lens. The 1.7 seemed a little better on my friend's VRII. I don't have the 1.4, but it is universally reported as working well with the VRI. Just does not seem like much of a magnification boost.
Have read good things about the TC-20III recently. Did not actually realize that there was a newish model out. Interesting to hear that it might work well with the 70-200 lenses. Would like to hear others chime in on this combination.
I've taken most of my favorite images and made quite a bit of money with the VR1. It's one of the great Nikkors. While the VRII is certainly an improvement you have to decide if its worth the extra money. I believe it is worth the extra money but it in no way makes the previous one any less wonderful. As far as being "optimized" for full frame I would say that also if I wanted to sell more lenses at a higher price to new D800 and D4 customers. My experience has been that the newest Nikkor version is always the better one. You just have to decide if it's worth the extra money.
Gregg Heckler wrote:
I've taken most of my favorite images and made quite a bit of money with the VR1. It's one of the great Nikkors. While the VRII is certainly an improvement you have to decide if its worth the extra money. I believe it is worth the extra money but it in no way makes the previous one any less wonderful. As far as being "optimized" for full frame I would say that also if I wanted to sell more lenses at a higher price to new D800 and D4 customers. My experience has been that the newest Nikkor version is always the better one. You just have to decide if it's worth the extra money....Show more →
