Nikon 70-200 VRI or VRII

EMA747

EMA747

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,070
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
Yes
Hopefully I will be getting a Nikon 70-200 f2.8 either version 1 or version 2.
I wanted to ask anyone who has used these two if there is much difference between them IQ wise? The version 2 is pretty rare used it seems so it would probably cost me £1600 for a new one where as the version 1 can be had for around £1000 used. Is there a £500-600 difference? Would be used on a D3s body.
 
The VRI vignettes on FX but the VRII breathes so is not 200mm equivalent at short focusing distances. That's basically the choice!
 
I was on the understanding that the VRII was virtually made for FX bodies... Well thats what I was reading when I was looking for the upgrade :suspect:
 
"Is there a £500-600 difference" Simple answer is no, the VR1 does vig a little, the VR11 is slightly sharper around the edges and equates to around 140mm at short focusing distances. Put the extra 500-600 squids toward another lens.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
As Scott says ive owned both and i wouldnt give you £50 for a MKII, if im paying for 200mm i want 200mm and not 135mm, if you plan to use 200mm at anything closer than 10-15 metres youll be disappointed, it really is very strange to zoom in on a subject at say 10 metres away expecting it to come closer but to watch it actually go futher away
 
Well mkI it is then. I need all of that 200mm reach. I have read about the focal length breathing but never realised it was by that much!

Gary how is the vignetting on the D3s with the mkI? Are we talking just a bit and in certain situations or a significant amount that would need a fair bit of fixing in PP?
 
I've also owned both and currently have the VR11 which shall be going soon and replaced for another VR1. It's not as bad as people make out (generally those trying to justify the upgrade say it is a real issue) and is easily fixed in PP or by using the vig control on your camera.

Having said that the VR11 is a stunning lens and marginally better, but as i said save your money and spend it on something else
 
Last edited:
The vignetting is a single click fix in lightroom.
 
EMA747 said:
Well mkI it is then. I need all of that 200mm reach. I have read about the focal length breathing but never realised it was by that much!

Gary how is the vignetting on the D3s with the mkI? Are we talking just a bit and in certain situations or a significant amount that would need a fair bit of fixing in PP?
Click to expand...

Its really not a problem for me, the majority of stuff i shoot have darkish backgrounds from Stadiums etc, etc so it never shows up anyway.

However even if it does show up its a simple PP fix in 2 seconds.
 
The VR1 was the dog dangleys even on a D3 before the VR2 came out! I still use the 80-200f2.8 but would definitely pick up the Mk1 if the price was right. A lot of people did upgrade though so there must be a discernible difference.
 
is the focus breathing a major problem then? If it means that you can't get 200mm, even when you're 10-15 meters(quoted from a post above) from your subject, then i'm amazed they even released the thing!!
 
Having the full 200mm available is much more important than a slight increase in IQ in my view so yeah I agree with Rowan above.

Pretty sure I will buy the VR1 after reading the replies. It's cheaper and you get the full focal length.
 
rampanthamster said:
is the focus breathing a major problem then? If it means that you can't get 200mm, even when you're 10-15 meters(quoted from a post above) from your subject, then i'm amazed they even released the thing!!
Click to expand...

Here's the actual focal length at 200mm/distance table from http://bythom.com/nikkor-70-200-VR-II-lens.htm (page has a good illustration of the issue)

1.4m - 134mm
2m - 147mm
3m - 164mm
5m - 176mm
10m - 186mm
Infinity - 192mm

At 10m it's as near as makes no difference. When I had mine it was never an issue as I never used to shoot anything closer than 5-10m. The article linked to above also points out the old one used to breathe at the other end - up close, 70mm was actually 80mm.
 
I've actually got both just now :$

My Mk1 vignettes a wee bit but not enough to be a problem.
 
Coming back to this thread rather than starting a new one...

If I plan to use the 70-200 with a converter for a bit more reach for aviation would that still mean the VR1 is the one to go for? I don't do aviation that much to be honest and it's just for my own interest rather than commercial so it's probably not the be all and end all.
 
EMA747 said:
Coming back to this thread rather than starting a new one...

If I plan to use the 70-200 with a converter for a bit more reach for aviation would that still mean the VR1 is the one to go for? I don't do aviation that much to be honest and it's just for my own interest rather than commercial so it's probably not the be all and end all.
Click to expand...

i have a nikon 1.4x glued to mine all the time, simply superb
 
Is the AF fast on the D3s with the 1.4x Gary?

Have you ever tried the "crop" mode on the D3s? I doubt I'd use it much normally but the aviation I shoot mainly goes to a site that require on low res of 1024-1600px so it might be acceptable despite the loss of 12mp in crop mode.
 
Crop will take you down to 5MP. Not good.

1.4x is great on the VRI. 1.7x is where you begin to notice the difference depending on how far away the subject is, etc.

1.7x on the VRII is not so noticeable. It is a very sharp lens and takes the 1.7x well.

I just sold my VRII. I will most likely go with the VRI as I always liked the pics from it and the fact that it doesn't breathe like the VRII does. I'll use it solo more than with TC's, hence the willingness to get rid of the VRII and go with VRI.

mike
 
scottthehat said:
which will you be keeping. and is the vr11 much better.
Click to expand...

I'd forgotten about this thread, apologies. I'll probably keep the MkII, just because it's the newer lens. Just about to put the Mk1 in for a service so I'll decide then.

EMA747 said:
Have you ever tried the "crop" mode on the D3s? I doubt I'd use it much normally but the aviation I shoot mainly goes to a site that require on low res of 1024-1600px so it might be acceptable despite the loss of 12mp in crop mode.
Click to expand...

I use the crop modes regularly and print out up to A3 for customers without any problems.
 
Found this thread in the search for answers regarding the VR1 vs VR2 argument.

It seems the VR1 is preferred. I have never used either, but am looking to upgrade the Sigma 70-200 I purchased a few months back, as a stop gap until I could afford a Nikon 70-200.

Is buying SH off eBay recommended for the VR1? I would like to get a 1.4x T/C too.

Any help would be hugely appreciated.
 
scottthehat said:
ebay is ok and mpb at the top have a couple for sale, the vr 1 is awsome and keep looking in the classified section.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply.

I know it is very much a 'how long is a piece of string' question, but around how much would I be looking to pay?
 
Seba said:
Thanks for the reply.

I know it is very much a 'how long is a piece of string' question, but around how much would I be looking to pay?
Click to expand...
any where from £700 for a beat up model to £1,000 for a minter but £900 is about right.
 
Seba said:
Thanks for the reply.

I know it is very much a 'how long is a piece of string' question, but around how much would I be looking to pay?
Click to expand...

Buy off TP classifieds and you'll pick one up for less than £950. Buy from a used dealer and it'll be closer to a grand. Fleabay can throw up deals but the bidding can get silly
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top