Nikon 70-200mm vr1 v vr2

Characteristics

Characteristics

Suspended / Banned
Messages
444
Name
Jason
Edit My Images
Yes
I am thinking of splashing the last of my rainy day cash.

I do not really need it but thinking of taking advantage of the fact the new vr2 is out so the old vr1 is on offer on different sites approx £1500 if you look.

Now do I invest in the vr1 at the steal of a price of £1500?

Or

get it later in the year due to my NAS affliction


What do you think?

Is the VR2 £500 better?
 
The VR1 is a stonklingly good lens, so the VR2 better be something very special imho to better it.
 
The newer version has been fettled with to work as it should on FX, with no vignetting etc, so unless you are planning on moving up to FX any time soon id go for the older version, exceptioally good lens that it is. Having siad that, me, id go for the new one, yes NAS is an addictive thing..
 
The Vr2 was available for order for about £1750 at a couple of places recently, personally for the relatively small amount more I'd go for the VR2
 
icecavern said:
The Vr2 was available for order for about £1750 at a couple of places recently, personally for the relatively small amount more I'd go for the VR2
Click to expand...

I will have to check that out
 
I wouldn't compare a new VR1 to a VR2, I'd think more along lines of a £1k 2nd hand VR1 vs. the £1750 VR2. I went for the VR1 and on the D300s I can't fault it.
 
I have the V1 on a D700 and its exceptional....except on the edges,i.e say your taking a group shot at a wedding.........as you pan away from the bride and groom in the center...you notice the people become noticeably softer as you near the edge of the frame.....Not so much an issue on Dx.

The VII has much improved edge sharpness and is supposed to be sharper wide open.It is rumoured to be shorter though i.e not actually 200mm.

If there is only £200 in it, Id get the newer.

That said you can get some pretty good used VI's for £1200 or so......something to bear in mind.
 
Personally, if I was in the market again for a 70-200 F2.8 I'd go for a second hand MK1, my reasoning for this is that there are quite a few appearing on the market at reasonable prices (IRO £1K) and the resale value of the MK1 will stay about this for quite some time IMO and therefore I could sell at any time and not loose much, if anything (and I might even gain a few quid).

I suspect there is very little difference in real life use between the MK1 and MK2 and from what I've read the changes are pretty much limited to the vignetting on FF. Personally I like the effect the MK1 has on FF as it helps focus the attention to the middle of the image where the subject usually is. Let's be honest vignetting is only really a problem when there is a solid colour near the edge of the frame.
 
Thanks guys/gals.

As I said, not in a rush, just there are some bargains due to the vr2 release.
 
Characteristics said:
I do not really need it
Click to expand...

Think that answers your question overall to be honest!! But anyway pick up a decent 2nd hand version of the VR1 for even less Good ones for Circa £1k. Haven't seen or used a VR2 but I'd question if it's worth the extra especially if you don't really need it! ;) Good Luck
 
Make sure your Mrs doesn't find out you are about to spend 1500+ on more kit, afterall you told us you didn't dare insure what you had already... :D
 
desantnik said:
Make sure your Mrs doesn't find out you are about to spend 1500+ on more kit, afterall you told us you didn't dare insure what you had already... :D
Click to expand...

Tell me about it.
 
Vulkan75 said:
I have the V1 on a D700 and its exceptional....except on the edges,i.e say your taking a group shot at a wedding.........as you pan away from the bride and groom in the center...you notice the people become noticeably softer as you near the edge of the frame.....Not so much an issue on Dx.
Click to expand...

but why would you ever use this lens for that sort of thing?
 
boyfalldown said:
but why would you ever use this lens for that sort of thing?
Click to expand...

Because a telephoto gives a more pleasing image than a wide angle. This is going back to 85mm being perfect...
 
desantnik said:
Because a telephoto gives a more pleasing image than a wide angle. This is going back to 85mm being perfect...
Click to expand...

that depends on what you wish to shoot - and I can't see anybody sensibly wishing to shoot a wedding group shot with a 70-200 as per the example above - can you really?
 
boyfalldown said:
but why would you ever use this lens for that sort of thing?
Click to expand...

The example I mentioned was for illustration purposes, as to what happens to a V1 on a Fx sensor.....Its not just about the vignetting that has been mentioned but edge sharpness.

In actual fact,I wouldnt use a V1 for that purpose for that reason......however I would use a V2 on a group shot in a heartbeat.
 
how well does the V2 work of a Crop camera ie the D300
 
Vulkan75 said:
The example I mentioned was for illustration purposes, as to what happens to a V1 on a Fx sensor.....Its not just about the vignetting that has been mentioned but edge sharpness.

In actual fact,I wouldnt use a V1 for that purpose for that reason......however I would use a V2 on a group shot in a heartbeat.
Click to expand...

really? - I know its a bit of an aside but don't you find you might be too far away if you did? - that was why I was questioning & I've never had a problem with edge sharpness on the VR1 at f2.8 in a wedding - never felt the need to shoot groups at that length though
 
jonnyjogpants said:
how well does the V2 work of a Crop camera ie the D300
Click to expand...


It won't be any problem, any more than the old one was a problem. The main thing they have fixed is a slight vignette effect that some very vocal whiners on internet forums haven't shut up about since they got a D3/D700.
 
boyfalldown said:
really? - I know its a bit of an aside but don't you find you might be too far away if you did? - that was why I was questioning & I've never had a problem with edge sharpness on the VR1 at f2.8 in a wedding - never felt the need to shoot groups at that length though
Click to expand...


Im not talking about the 200mm end......Shooting at 70mm only puts you 20mm beyond representative human field of view.Your not actually that far away.Its a perfectly acceptable focal length and gives you that added bonus of zooming for head and shoulder portraits and better isolation bokeh.

Using the VI is great if the subject is center frame...... anything near the edge of frame becomes soft.....like I said I wouldnt use the VI for groups anyway... Id stick the 24-70 on.However If I had the VII on and the circumstances arose,I wouldnt be worried at all....or concern my self with changing lenses....unless the location demanded it.
 
Vulkan75 said:
Using the VI is great if the subject is center frame...... anything near the edge of frame is soft.....like I said I wouldnt use the VI for groups anyway...
Click to expand...
Then youve had a bum V1 cos mine is brilliant, only very, very slight vignetting and only noticable on a white background, and mega sharp right to the very edge on FF
 
I certainly dont have a duff copy, as I mentioned above its superb....and im not slagging it off.

The fact is its a dx designed lens and the problems that you would expect on a fx sensor are evident to me in some circumstances.

If you have a copy that is that perfect ...on Fx,you must be one of a handfull in the world.

Looking at your pictures(awesome by the way)I doubt you would see the problem were talking about antyway.

Interesting Dpreview article Here

My experience and a couple of million others certainly corroborate that.
 
Vulkan75 said:
I certainly dont have a duff copy, as I mentioned above its superb....and im not slagging it off.

The fact is its a dx designed lens and the problems that you would expect on a fx sensor are evident to me in some circumstances.

If you have a copy that is that perfect ...on Fx,you must be one of a handfull in the world.

Looking at your pictures(awesome by the way)I doubt you would see the problem were talking about antyway.

Interesting Dpreview article Here

My experience and a couple of million others certainly corroborate that.
Click to expand...

its not DX designed. Can you point us to where it says it is?.

The DPreview article comes across as pixel peeping and not really representative of the lens - certainly not in real world useage.

Hugh
 
It's not DX designed, it was designed for use on Film cameras as well (remember them?? :D:D:D)
 
It may not have been explicitly marketed as a DX lens, but the marketing for VII seems to suggest it has been designed to correct the problems of VI on FX...
 
It all depends on your useage of the lens. I'm happy with mine, Gary is happy with his, man many people are also happy with theirs.

But the statement of "DX designed" is wrong. It was designed for FF Film cameras.
 
PhotoTalk said:
It may not have been explicitly marketed as a DX lens, but the marketing for VII seems to suggest it has been designed to correct the problems of VI on FX...
Click to expand...

no it doesn't - and the old version was explcitly marketed as FX. Nikon would be somewhat foolish if they implied in theiradvertising they were fixing problems with a previous lens
 
I don't have much to offer to this debate from a VRI vs. VRII performance angle, as I've never owned the VRI. I do have some thoughts about the financial implications of each though.

As you said, Jason, you like to buy new - so do I :naughty:. New VRIs are still selling at around 1,500GBP (from UK dealers), whereas the new VRII costs between 1,700 and 2,000GBP, depending on who has overstocks on this model and who only has as many as they can sell.

Hopefully, these are both bona fide websites, but for Heaven's sake, check them out carefully before buying :( ...

Link 1 ...

Link 2 ...

Actually, I bought my VRII for a good price, from a Welsh camera shop who had pre-ordered 10 pieces for stock ... and actually got all 10 :eek:! This is, apparently, unusual with new Nikon pro lenses and so they needed to sell off a few (with reduced profit margins) just to keep their stock holding (and cash flow) under control. So, the difference 'new' is not necessarily going to be as much as 500GBP.

Secondly, what do you think will happen with the prices of used 70-200mms in the future!? My guess is that the VRI will still be popular for a few years, but will only sell for less than 1,000GBP (it just peaked recently and some were selling for up to 1,200GBP used, but I really can't see the demand being there in the future, now that a new model has been released to rave reviews), whereas the VRII model is likely to sell for closer to 1,600GBP used in the short term. Then, if Nikon put up the price of the new VRII model, used prices will rise with it. This is very significant, as many owners of the VRI managed to sell their used lenses at a profit, following last year's (crazy) rises in RRPs :|. My feeling is that I would be far more likely to lose less money on buying (and then later selling) a 2,000GBP VRII, than I would be on buying and selling a 1,500GBP VRI :|.

Finally, all financial considerations aside, you have to ask yourself which one of these two lenses is going to be the better of the two for what you have in mind :shrug:. Only you can decide on that, but I would (did) make that the primary factor in my decision. In my case, the new VRII model looked like a much better bet for my FX camera (and 35mm film cameras) and I didn't care about the internal focusing 'issue', raised by some sceptical press photographers - the other benefits out-weigh it, IMO.

I hope that you get a chance to try out both of these lenses at some point (hire them, maybe!?) and can then make a really well informed decision, which you will be happy with well into the future.

Good luck!
 
Ok Dx designed maybe the wrong choice of word....maybe it should have been Dx optimised.

We seem to have been some what side tracked from the op's question.Pulling apart my words is irrelivant.

He asked which of the two lenses he should purchase.

Whilst they are both fantastic lenses,is it not fair to highlight a "KNOWN" issue the VI has on a Fx sensor....an issue which Nikon has spent a considerable amount of time,money and research correcting,An issue which I personally have noticed in the course of my use of the product and an issue to bear in mind when investing £1000+ in glass......especially if an idividual is thinking on going FX in the future.

As I say,Im completely happy with my VI.....However there is an issue there,which I have noticed(as have Nikon and many many others)in my shooting and I thought the op should bear in mind in his decision process....thats all I was saying:).
 
boyfalldown said:
no it doesn't - and the old version was explcitly marketed as FX. Nikon would be somewhat foolish if they implied in theiradvertising they were fixing problems with a previous lens
Click to expand...

Nikon has only had a FX DSLR for a couple of years......The previous Film cameras Whilst compatible with the lens only a handfull were with the VR...The F5, F100, F80, F65....All the D's were Dx then.

The Fact is The 2003 70-200VR was principally made for the Dseries with backward compatability.
Nikon arnt correcting mistakes it was a perfect lens at the time,they are just evolving the product as tech changes.
 
Vulkan75 said:
Nikon has only had a FX DSLR for a couple of years......The previous Film cameras Whilst compatible with the lens only a handfull were with the VR...The F5, F100, F80, F65....All the D's were Dx then.

The Fact is The 2003 70-200VR was principally made for the Dseries with backward compatability.
Nikon arnt correcting mistakes it was a perfect lens at the time,they are just evolving the product as tech changes.
Click to expand...

you keep quoting that as fact - Nikon have always have and still do market the lens as FX, nowhere have they ever said they designed it with DX sensors only in mind and have never said or implied they were only giving 35mm a backward thought. Bear in mind the VRI is I think the 7th version of that lens from Nikon.

Please don't mis understand - I understand your sentiments about the lens now, although I don't have the issues with my copy that seem to exist in some. You keep quoting things as fact though that patently aren't and are just your thoughts on things.

Were I to answer the OP's question now I'd be suggesting the VRII for future proofing/financial reasons if nothing else.
 
boyfalldown said:
you keep quoting that as fact - Nikon have always have and still do market the lens as FX, nowhere have they ever said they designed it with DX sensors only in mind and have never said or implied they were only giving 35mm a backward thought. Bear in mind the VRI is I think the 7th version of that lens from Nikon.

Please don't mis understand - I understand your sentiments about the lens now, although I don't have the issues with my copy that seem to exist in some. You keep quoting things as fact though that patently aren't and are just your thoughts on things.

Were I to answer the OP's question now I'd be suggesting the VRII for future proofing/financial reasons if nothing else.
Click to expand...

oK:thumbs:
 
Naboo32

That the type of answer I was after.

Thanks
 
Just bought the vr2.

How big is the box,
 
VR II is noticeably sharper wide open / better speed focusing and the colours better match the 24-70G
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top