Nikon 70-200 2.8 VRI or VRII - Much difference?

doublemint76 · 14 May 2016

Hi, I was thinkking of upgrading my 80-200 2.8 AFD (NOT the push pull version) to a 70-200. I was of course thinking of the VRI as its a bit cheaper but i've been told to avoid this as people have had lots of problems with them. So i've few questions i was wondering if i could get some opinions/answers on?

I use a D600 so an FX camera and would love to hear anyone thoughts who have shot the VRI on full frame and have then go on to the VRII

1. Does the VRI really suffer with problems?

2. Is the VRII worth the extra money?

3. Would i notice alot of difference upgrading to the VRI from my current 80-200?

Thanks

minnnt · 14 May 2016

I have the original VR and I've had no issues. Not sure what you've read or been told but it's well worth the money imo. Only issue I've read about is that it's a little soft on the edges but I've never had any real problems with mine.

doublemint76 · 14 May 2016

minnnt said:
I have the original VR and I've had no issues. Not sure what you've read or been told but it's well worth the money imo. Only issue I've read about is that it's a little soft on the edges but I've never had any real problems with mine.

Was told by a user on here that everyone he knew who had this lens complainied about the VRI saying that it wasn't sharp and the VR was useless, i find this hard to believe but its now put some doubt into my mind now about wheter or not to upgrade or hold off until i can afford the VRII which wil probably be never....lol

rob-nikon · 14 May 2016

I've had a vr1 and vr2 although the vr1 was used on a crop sensor. The main differences are corner sharpness where the vr2 is much better. The vr2 does suffer from focus breathing close up. A friend has used the vr1 on a d800 for a while and got very decent images from it including with Teleconverters (1.4x and 1.7x). He recently traded it in for a vr2 because he was noticing a lack of sharpness in the corners.

If you can find a decent quality (not battered) vr1 at a good price it's probably worth going with the a vr1. I've seen vr1s going for around £600-700 whereas the vr2 goes for around £1000-1200 so it can be a sizeable price difference.

minnnt · 14 May 2016

doublemint76 said:
Was told by a user on here that everyone he knew who had this lens complainied about the VRI saying that it wasn't sharp and the VR was useless, i find this hard to believe but its now put some doubt into my mind now about wheter or not to upgrade or hold off until i can afford the VRII which wil probably be never....lol

Lol...

I'll leave this here and let you have a gander. Various shots with the 70-200 on a D750 including some with the 1.7x TC and a few on a D300. Exif is intact if you're interested.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/73723596@N08/

My opinion is that the VR has nicer rendering, but the VR2 has better overall sharpness (corners) but it suffers with focus breathing at close focus distances at the long end.

But then again, i paid £580 for mine...

trevorbray · 14 May 2016

I've got the VR1. Used to use it for equestrian photography. Nearly always in dim arenas. Indoors always shot at 2.8. It vignettes a bit, not a problem for my use. Nearly always cropping a bit anyway.
Used my mates VR2 when mine was in for service. Couldn't tell the difference apart from the vignette.
Both lightning fast to focus. Both very sharp.
Probably keep mine forever.

Swanseajack · 14 May 2016

I have read that the only gains of the VR1 over the 80-200mm are the AFS, VR, weather sealing and coatings, some will say that it's not enough of an upgrade unless you need them and to go for the VRii version. The IQ is supposed to be very similar, with perhaps the 80-200mm being better in the corners. David produces some excellent photos with his VR1 as shown above.

Another option is to consider the 70-200mm f4 as some say its sharper than the VRii plus you have the less weight and better VR system which can compensate for the difference between f2.8 and f4.0.

Worth a read > https://photographylife.com/nikon-70-200mm-f4-vs-f2-8

snerkler · 14 May 2016

minnnt said:
Lol...

I'll leave this here and let you have a gander. Various shots with the 70-200 on a D750 including some with the 1.7x TC and a few on a D300. Exif is intact if you're interested.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/73723596@N08/

My opinion is that the VR has nicer rendering, but the VR2 has better overall sharpness (corners) but it suffers with focus breathing at close focus distances at the long end.

But then again, i paid £580 for mine...

I prefer the rendering of the VRII (maybe it's ownership bias

), but let's be honest neither are shabby are they

And at £580 it's an absolute bargain and no brainer.

OP, the Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 VC is also worth considering, very very nice lens and razor sharp. Take a look at some of Anibap's shots on the D750 thread.

snerkler · 14 May 2016

Swanseajack said:
I have read that the only gains of the VR1 over the 80-200mm are the AFS, VR, weather sealing and coatings, some will say that it's not enough of an upgrade unless you need them and to go for the VRii version. The IQ is supposed to be very similar, with perhaps the 80-200mm being better in the corners. David produces some excellent photos with his VR1 as shown above.

Another option is to consider the 70-200mm f4 as some say its sharper than the VRii plus you have the less weight and better VR system which can compensate for the difference between f2.8 and f4.0.

Worth a read > https://photographylife.com/nikon-70-200mm-f4-vs-f2-8

Depends on what you read. I do like the reviews on photography life site, but I do wonder if he got a bad copy of the f2.8 as he alludes to. If you look at tests like this the f2.8 is sharper at f2.8 than the f4 at f4 (for most of the FLs), and with both at f4 the f2.8 is clearly much sharper.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

Unfortunately it just all adds to the confusion

minnnt · 14 May 2016

snerkler said:
I prefer the rendering of the VRII (maybe it's ownership bias ), but let's be honest neither are shabby are they And at £580 it's an absolute bargain and no brainer.

OP, the Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 VC is also worth considering, very very nice lens and razor sharp. Take a look at some of Anibap's shots on the D750 thread.

Bloody snob...

doublemint76 · 14 May 2016

Hmmmm... My heads hurts..lol.

Much to read and think about, thanks everyone

Swanseajack · 14 May 2016

snerkler said:
Depends on what you read. I do like the reviews on photography life site, but I do wonder if he got a bad copy of the f2.8 as he alludes to. If you look at tests like this the f2.8 is sharper at f2.8 than the f4 at f4 (for most of the FLs), and with both at f4 the f2.8 is clearly much sharper.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

Unfortunately it just all adds to the confusion

Excuses, excuses of an owner

I like PL as I feel he gives a fair comparison. Best way to test, is test the lenses yourself, with so many companies offering refunds or try a local camera shop with stock, you can then make your own decisions without costing you a penny.

I bought a Nikon 24-85VR a couple of weeks ago as it comes highly recommended and IMO it was very poor on my camera, so I returned it. Will probably save up a bit more and look at the wide angle offerings for my needs, Sigma 24-35 f2 or the Tamron 15-30mm f2.8 or the Nikon 20mm f1.8G or....................... I'm totally confused

, so appreciate what the OP is going through

snerkler · 14 May 2016

Swanseajack said:
Excuses, excuses of an owner

Maybe

But my 70-200mm f2.8 is pin sharp, although does need +14 MA on my D750, and I know Rookies 70-200 is the same on his D750 too

I like PL as I feel he gives a fair comparison.

Likewise. Could be that it wasn't MA'd in that test though, as above some require some major MA (which is quite poor for a high end lens imo)

Best way to test, is test the lenses yourself, with so many companies offering refunds or try a local camera shop with stock, you can then make your own decisions without costing you a penny.

Best answer yet

Trouble is there seems to be so much sample variation these days though

GHP · 14 May 2016

IMHO, the first question to answer is why do you feel the need to upgrade?
The perceived benefits of an upgrade often don't translate to the real world, as the improvements are often so small you don't even notice them.
Of course, GAS tends to trump reason, or at least it does in my case !

doublemint76 · 14 May 2016

I suppose there is no real need to upgrade if i really think about it, the main think i'm hoping for is better optics but having said that, my 80-200 is hardly a slouch in that department and its not great shooting into the sun as it has no coating on the lens. Focusing can be slow and is quite harsh as its screw driven so that another improvement i'm hoping to see along with the VR. There, i've talked myself into it.... for the moment

Plus it looks bloody good

snerkler · 14 May 2016

doublemint76 said:
I suppose there is no real need to upgrade if i really think about it, the main think i'm hoping for is better optics but having said that, my 80-200 is hardly a slouch in that department and its not great shooting into the sun as it has no coating on the lens. Focusing can be slow and is quite harsh as its screw driven so that another improvement i'm hoping to see along with the VR. There, i've talked myself into it.... for the moment

Plus it looks bloody good

AF on the VRII is like lightening.

minnnt · 14 May 2016

GHP said:
IMHO, the first question to answer is why do you feel the need to upgrade?
The perceived benefits of an upgrade often don't translate to the real world, as the improvements are often so small you don't even notice them.
Of course, GAS tends to trump reason, or at least it does in my case !

What a boring answer.

suggs · 14 May 2016

i have both the VR1 and VR2 on a FX body and have taken over 100.000 images with each lens and the VR2 is better, although the VR1 is still a cracking lens.

StewartR · 16 May 2016

snerkler said:
AF on the VRII is like lightening.

I was going to try to make some witty comment about Nikon users not knowing what *really* fast autofocus is, but decided against it.

The AF in the 70-200 VR (both versions) is considerably faster than the older design AF used by the 80-200, to be sure. That's a good reason for an upgrade just on its own.

Other than that, people here have identified the main issues to consider.
* All the lenses are optically good.
* The VR I was clearly designed with DX sensors in mind, because sharpness falls off quite significantly outside the DX frame.
* The VR II displays an astonishing amount of focus breathing - at close distances it's more like a 70-135 than a 70-200. (Maximum magnification is 0.12x, compared with 0.18x for the VR I.)

These last two points might not bother you at all, or might be show stoppers, depending on what you shoot. If neither of them bothers you, then the VR I is cheaper to buy used.

technics100 · 16 May 2016

I borrowed my dads VRII last week for a wedding.. absolute peach of a lens.. so sharp at f/2.8 and VR is superb..