Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2015 · $1000 70-200 vr1 vs $1750 70-200 vr2

  
 
Depth of Feel
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · $1000 70-200 vr1 vs $1750 70-200 vr2


Recent nikon convert here. My d750's should arrive before the end of the week. I mostly shoot weddings and will be picking up a 105 or 135 DC here soon. Coming from canon I owned the 70-200 2.8 IS but I never used it in lieu of the lighter, sharper, faster 135L.

From what I understand the 135 DC might not cut it for churches and receptions like my 135L did so it looks like I need to pick up a longer zoom. Since its a lens I only plan to use for inside churches and certain types of receptions I don't really want to spend a lot on it so I will buy used. I have (provided they are still available) the option to get the VR1 version for around $1000 or a VR2 version for $1750. Can I spend less money and not regret it? Whenever I grab for it it will be reluctantly anyway. That is unless the fringing on the 135 dc breaks my will.



May 19, 2015 at 02:01 AM
JPuckettPhoto
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · $1000 70-200 vr1 vs $1750 70-200 vr2


This was a recent post on the topic, hopefully it will help your decision.


May 19, 2015 at 05:01 AM
CanadaMark
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · $1000 70-200 vr1 vs $1750 70-200 vr2


Go with the VR2 since you're using full frame, and also because you shoot weddings (assuming for income). It's quite a bit sharper in the corners on FF compared to the VR1, has noticeably better VR, and focuses a touch faster. The only thing to be aware of is it does focus breathe a bit, dropping down to about 135mm at 200mm MFD. By 10-15 feet or so you're back up much closer to 200mm, so it's rarely an issue, but something to be aware of. The VR1 does it's MFD breathing on the wide end instead, and the VR2 is wider at the 70mm mark (vs 80mm on the VR1).

You can buy brand new 70-200 VR2's with full warranty for $1960 USD at the moment (just buy in Canada @ Henry's), so in my opinion $1750 USD for a used one is not a good deal at all. For the mere ~$200 difference I would much rather have a brand new lens with the full 5 years of warranty.



May 19, 2015 at 10:44 AM
Lee Saxon
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · $1000 70-200 vr1 vs $1750 70-200 vr2


I think I remember from the other thread that you autofocus? If so the speed of that may be what breaks you about the 135 DC. It's a good lens but that is not its forte. And if you manual focus you should buy the 135/2 ZF.2 instead of any of these.

I would disagree with CanadaMark's description of the VR2's "breathing" as "a bit." 135@200 is pretty ridiculous. Look at the Handling section of Thom's review: http://www.bythom.com/nikkor-70-200-VR-II-lens.htm to visualize it. However, it is way sharper especially in the corners and a more accurate focuser compared to the VR1. I'd go with the VR2.



May 19, 2015 at 11:27 AM
CanadaMark
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · $1000 70-200 vr1 vs $1750 70-200 vr2


^^ I used that term because it's only really bad at MFD. Off of MFD, you start clawing back the mm's reasonably quick. If you do all your shooting at extreme MFD, then yes, you will probably notice it more than most. If you do mixed shooting, or rarely are at the extreme MFD, I don't find it very noticeable. I have owned the VR1 and VR2 versions on both DX and FX and both the lenses' breathing characteristics have never bothered me. It doesn't even cross my mind anymore now that I no longer have both lenses to compare. It's strengths make up for the breathing IMO. YMMV of course. If you think it will really bother you or affect your shooting, it is something to be aware of


May 19, 2015 at 12:07 PM
david debalko
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · $1000 70-200 vr1 vs $1750 70-200 vr2


I was using a 80-200 AFS lens for years that I decided to move on from primarily to gain the VR, I shoot D4's and 750, looked at the VR1 and the VR 2, went with the VR 2 and I love the lens! I don't think you will be disappointed.



May 19, 2015 at 12:52 PM
tobycat2
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · $1000 70-200 vr1 vs $1750 70-200 vr2


Is the 70-200 vr2 much better optically than the 80-200 AFS?

david debalko wrote:
I was using a 80-200 AFS lens for years that I decided to move on from primarily to gain the VR, I shoot D4's and 750, looked at the VR1 and the VR 2, went with the VR 2 and I love the lens! I don't think you will be disappointed.




May 19, 2015 at 10:55 PM
Two23
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · $1000 70-200 vr1 vs $1750 70-200 vr2


I was using 70-200mm f2.8 VR-1 with D7100 pair to do weddings. Now using the lens on D800E. I see no noticeable difference in sharpness except in extreme corners wide open. As a wedding photographer, the extreme corners are of no consequence to me. I did try the VR-2 version and the "focus breathing" on it was a noticeably bigger issue for me than the slightly soft corners wide open of the VR-1. Kept the VR-1 and saved the $$ as profit. Either lens is going to work, so as usual I saved the money, since this is business, not GAS.


Kent in SD



May 19, 2015 at 11:25 PM
Depth of Feel
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · $1000 70-200 vr1 vs $1750 70-200 vr2


Lee Saxon wrote:
I think I remember from the other thread that you autofocus? If so the speed of that may be what breaks you about the 135 DC. It's a good lens but that is not its forte. And if you manual focus you should buy the 135/2 ZF.2 instead of any of these.

I would disagree with CanadaMark's description of the VR2's "breathing" as "a bit." 135@200 is pretty ridiculous. Look at the Handling section of Thom's review: http://www.bythom.com/nikkor-70-200-VR-II-lens.htm to visualize it. However, it is way sharper especially in the corners and a more accurate focuser compared to the VR1. I'd
...Show more

I don't know why everyone complains about the speed of the autofocus. I got a chance to use it in the shop and it's just fine for everything but sports. If my subject is moving I wouldn't be using that focal length anyway.



May 20, 2015 at 02:02 AM
Mr. Clean
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · $1000 70-200 vr1 vs $1750 70-200 vr2


If you can afford the VR2 buy it, it's the best 70-200 option out there. I've got the Tamron which is good but again if money is no object...


May 20, 2015 at 08:33 AM
Depth of Feel
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · $1000 70-200 vr1 vs $1750 70-200 vr2


Money is an object for a lens that wont see a lot of use.


May 20, 2015 at 09:01 AM
Palmguy
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · $1000 70-200 vr1 vs $1750 70-200 vr2


I think the VR1 is just fine for portrait use on FX.


May 20, 2015 at 10:09 AM
thoang77
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · $1000 70-200 vr1 vs $1750 70-200 vr2


I haven't seen any problems with my VR1 for portrait use. I certainly wouldn't grab it for any telephoto landscapes due to the weak corners and vignetting, but for portraits, sports, wedding purposes, it's been a good performer.


May 20, 2015 at 10:32 AM
david debalko
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · $1000 70-200 vr1 vs $1750 70-200 vr2


tobycat2 wrote:
Is the 70-200 vr2 much better optically than the 80-200 AFS?


The 80-200 AFS was one of my sharper lenses, optically I was never disappointed. The 70-200 seems to match the 80-200 and it gives me the VR. I was also having focus issues with the 80-200 so it was time to move on



May 20, 2015 at 11:56 AM
wjlapier
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · $1000 70-200 vr1 vs $1750 70-200 vr2


david debalko wrote:
IMO, the 80-200 AFS is up there with the 200/2, 300/2.8 lens in terms of AF speed and sharpness--user experience shooting sports. If the 70-200 II is a match then it's a no brainer--if you need VR. BTW, I scored an excellent 80-200 AFS in the B/S for $725. It's only issue--a tiny scratch ( microscopic ) near the end of the front element. I'll never notice it ( and have a hard time finding it ) since I shoot wide open with this lens.



May 20, 2015 at 12:19 PM
wjlapier
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · $1000 70-200 vr1 vs $1750 70-200 vr2


That's odd. David didn't write what I just wrote above.


May 20, 2015 at 12:20 PM
M635_Guy
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · $1000 70-200 vr1 vs $1750 70-200 vr2


Depth of Feel wrote:
Money is an object for a lens that wont see a lot of use.


Then you've answered your question. The VRII seems to be staple of a lot of wedding photogs, including for portraits, but if that isn't your style buy the VRI and get out of dodge. Personally, I'd value VR enough to keep an 80-200 AFS off the list.



May 20, 2015 at 06:44 PM





FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.