p.1 #1 · Any differences between Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VRI and VRII?
What if any differences are there between the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VRI and the VRII lens? I had a chance to try out someone's VRII lens the other night. I am thinking about making a change, but didn't know if there is much difference between the two as far as shooting and age difference.
p.1 #3 · Any differences between Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VRI and VRII?
While it is sharp I haven't personally been fully satisfied with the VR of the first model and from the comparisons I've seen online the VRII is markedly better in that regard.
p.1 #5 · Any differences between Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VRI and VRII?
VR2 focus breathes HEAVILY compared to the VR1....Meaning.....at 200mm, if you focus on something far away with both lenses, they look exactly the same......at 200mm if you focus on something CLOSE with both lenses, the VR2 is actually WIDER than the VR1, meaning it's not ACTUALLY 200mm.....i've heard it's actually closer to like 160-180mm....that's a BIG thing for me....on FX you need all the reach you can get.....and even up close sometimes you want something to fill the frame, well it could be an annoyance on the VR2...
as far as the vignetting, that's "officially" the main reason nikon had for why they released it....to me, meh.....there's not that much difference....or, shall i say, the vignetting i saw on FX was never objectionable (to me)....
p.1 #6 · Any differences between Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VRI and VRII?
VRI - softer in the corners which never really sharpens up no matter how much you stop down.
- vignettes more than version II
- the VR is not as effective as version two of the lens
- lens is longer and thinner than version one
- sharp throughout the zoom range, even wide open (at least my copy is)
VRII - newest version of VR (definite improvement over version I and is hand holdable down to 1/50 fairly consistently which is not always true for version I)
- sharper in the corners
- less vignetting
- nano crystal coating reduces flare in backlit scenarios. this is very helpful as version of this lens doesn't have it and is very prone to flare
- slightly sharper than version one overall
i've shot extensively with both and still own the version one as it is literally 90-95% of the lens of version II for a lot less money.
NathanHamler wrote:
VR2 focus breathes HEAVILY compared to the VR1....Meaning.....at 200mm, if you focus on something far away with both lenses, they look exactly the same......at 200mm if you focus on something CLOSE with both lenses, the VR2 is actually WIDER than the VR1, meaning it's not ACTUALLY 200mm.....i've heard it's actually closer to like 160-180mm.....
Actually it's more like 180mm equivalent on the VR1 and 135mm on the VRII from what I've read on several different testing/review sites.
I've owned all three lenses and all are great, but each successive "update" to the lens has made some significant improvements that may or may not be important to you. All three are still fantastic optics, some just have some advantages over others.
I think it wouldn't hurt to read the reviews on each on Photozone, but for ME, I loved the VR1 on DX when it came out, as the focus was better and smoother tracking than the 80-200, and the bokkeh was nicer. Small updates, but worthwhile to me. Then when I transitioned to FX, I started to realize the slight shortcomings of the lens (on FX)... particularly the softer extremes, dip in general IQ slightly at the long end, and the performance of the lens when used with a TC. The VR2 addressed all three of these areas, and since I shoot the lens pretty much solely on FX now, and generally at the long end, that was a worthwhile upgrade to me. I couldn't care less about the "focus breathing" concern others seem to. It's a non-issue of ANY kind to me. I have a macro lens for when I want maximum magnification at MFD, and this lens gets used for sports, where shots at the MFD are almost never present. Personally I think the issue gets way too much hype, and many people don't even really understand the mechanics of it. I've even had people ask if I wasn't concerned that my lens was "actually a 70-135". Wow.
I have no trouble filling the frame with the VR2 and a headshot close to MFD. No award winner, just a test shot I just snapped using my son as a subject with the VR2, to show the lens close to that MFD, the increased sharpness at the long end, and also the effectiveness of the VR system on the lens. This - at full length - at 1/50th of a second. Forget the 1-over-FL rule, Nikon's got VR down. Handheld, lit by a window only, SOOC and not cropped. F4 and center focus point on inner right eye (the one on the left of the image )
At any rate, they're all good. You need to determine what you'll be using the lens for primarily and that will help figure out which one makes the most sense for you.
p.1 #11 · Any differences between Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VRI and VRII?
I primarily shoot action stuff, mostly at night. It varies from facility to facility as to the quality of lighting each place has. My Nikon 28-300 is really good at some places, not so good at others. I was at one of those places not so good the other night when I had the chance to borrow the 70-200.
p.1 #13 · Any differences between Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VRI and VRII?
VR: closer to 78mm on the wide end, over 30' it's around 196mm at the long end.
Minimal vignette on FX, not a factor on DX. Damn sharp all FL wide open, I like the bokeh a bit better.
VR II: closer to 72mm on the wide end, over 30' it's around 186mm at the long end.
Tack sharp wide open all FL, both FX & DX. Plays better with ALL TC's than the original.
Have over 200,000 rodeo/BIF/wedding images shot with each on FX/DX. AF stupid fast on both
and accurate in low light. VR II indeed a stop improvement (moot point for action) I don't give a rats ass
about "corners" so can recommend either without hesitation. If you plan on using TC's go for the VR II. GL
Best case scenario: buy new II with a body for nice discount and have peace of mind w/5yr warranty.
Budget solution: Pick up nice used VR for $1300-$1400. You'll still make bank, if "it moves"
p.1 #15 · Any differences between Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VRI and VRII?
trenchmonkey wrote:
I don't give a rats ass about "corners" so can recommend either without hesitation.
Exactly. I can't find anything to complain about with the VRI for shots where the corners don't matter... which are the kind of shots this lens was presumably designed for!
p.1 #17 · Any differences between Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VRI and VRII?
trenchmonkey wrote:
I don't give a rats ass about "corners" so can recommend either without hesitation.
Frank_Maiello wrote:
Exactly. I can't find anything to complain about with the VRI for shots where the corners don't matter... which are the kind of shots this lens was presumably designed for!
p.1 #18 · Any differences between Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VRI and VRII?
MackDaddy1962 wrote:
x2. Stunning skill-set TM. I'm so happy to see you share your knowledge here on FM.
Even though I opted for the VRII version, I'd have to say I'd be plenty happy with a good copy of the VRI. They're both $$$ makers!
Sure appreciate it, Jim. My time on FM has provided quite the 'boost' for my 2nd career, more than happy to give back.
Reading reviews is fine for some...I always seek out a shooter (who's work I respect) and see what they've done with a
particular lens/body combo. It's also important to find someone who shoots the type of stuff you do so it's an apples
to apples scenario. Lots can be gleaned from viewing Exif and I always try and leave mine accessible.
p.1 #20 · Any differences between Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VRI and VRII?
trenchmonkey wrote:
VR: closer to 78mm on the wide end, over 30' it's around 196mm at the long end.
Minimal vignette on FX, not a factor on DX. Damn sharp all FL wide open, I like the bokeh a bit better.
VR II: closer to 72mm on the wide end, over 30' it's around 186mm at the long end.
Tack sharp wide open all FL, both FX & DX. Plays better with ALL TC's than the original.
Have over 200,000 rodeo/BIF/wedding images shot with each on FX/DX. AF stupid fast on both
and accurate in low light. VR II indeed a stop improvement (moot point for action) I don't give a rats ass
about "corners" so can recommend either without hesitation. If you plan on using TC's go for the VR II. GL
Best case scenario: buy new II with a body for nice discount and have peace of mind w/5yr warranty.
Budget solution: Pick up nice used VR for $1300-$1400. You'll still make bank, if "it moves" ...Show more →
TM provides the best summary in a single digestable bite, with pictures to prove it.
If more detail is needed then I suggest the bythom article linked above.
)
My time on FM has provided quite the 'boost' for my 2nd career, more than happy to give back.