Difference between these Nikon lenses?

PetethePrimate

PetethePrimate

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,156
Name
Pete
Edit My Images
No
Hi
Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f2.8G ED VR II
Nikon AF-S VR 70-200mm f/2.8G IF-ED
The above lenses are showing on Camera Buster at the same price. Is there much of a difference between the two?
If I've looked at the right reviews on Thom Hogan's site the second one scores slightly higher with the first one being second generation VR?
Could someone possibly clarify this please?
Thanks
 
The second generation is marginally better. I'd be wary of using that company though.
 
the vr11 is suppose to be sharper in the corners and controls the vignetting better.
but does suffer from focus breathing,

breathing refers to when a lens' optics change the apparent focal length slightly when shifting the mechanical focus. Some (often more expensive) lenses are designed to lessen the degree this effect. Lens breathing does not prevent one from racking focus or following focus with this lens, but it lessens the desirability of any type of focus adjustment, since it noticeably changes the perspective and composition of the shot.

but i have the vr1 and love it so sharp on the d300 even in the corners, and on the d700 so sharp and have not had any problems with softness(but do get vignetting).
 
VR-II is much better than the VR-I in my opinion.
I found the 'one' a bit flimsy - it looked and felt wrong, though optically it was very good.
VR-II is much better - a more solid feel, much faster and quieter AF and equally as sharp with none of the slight vignetting that the earlier model had with FX cameras.
 
Sorry, getting my sites mixed up. It was early!
 
Thanks for the replies. The VRII looks like a good lens to save up for (perhaps with the 1.7 tC to go with it as well)
 
cobra_lite said:
VR-II is much better than the VR-I in my opinion.
I found the 'one' a bit flimsy - it looked and felt wrong, though optically it was very good.
VR-II is much better - a more solid feel, much faster and quieter AF and equally as sharp with none of the slight vignetting that the earlier model had with FX cameras.
Click to expand...
you must be looking at the wrong lens the vr1 is built like a tank af is awsome and quiet.
 
Last edited:
scottthehat said:
you must be looking at the wrong lens the vr1 is built like a tank af is awsome and quiet.
Click to expand...

Completely agree. I can't speak for the VRII version, but to describe version I as flimsy is astonishing. I use mine on a D3, and as I shoot mainly people, the vignetting diesn't worry me at all.
 
Luckynp said:
Completely agree. I can't speak for the VRII version, but to describe version I as flimsy is astonishing. I use mine on a D3, and as I shoot mainly people, the vignetting diesn't worry me at all.
Click to expand...
i agree in the real world its an awsome lens, the vr11 might have slight better image quality but does have its own downfalls.
 
cobra_lite said:
VR-II is much better than the VR-I in my opinion.
I found the 'one' a bit flimsy - it looked and felt wrong, though optically it was very good.
VR-II is much better - a more solid feel, much faster and quieter AF and equally as sharp with none of the slight vignetting that the earlier model had with FX cameras.
Click to expand...

I have the vr1 and it's built to last! Very solid with a true pro feel, certainly in no way flimsy. I love mine, perfect across the frame on my d300, slight vignetting wide open on the d700, but I like that and quite often add extra vignetting! I dare say the vr2 is better on a full frame, but you would be hard pushed to see much difference on a crop body I would think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top