Nikkor 70-200 f2.8

I seem to have it in my head that the VR 2 suffers from loss of focal length at close focus ranged a lot more than the VR 1. That said the VR2 is meant to be fractionally sharper as it's the one with a new optical design. The VR 1 shares a very similar design to many if it's predecessors.

This said I am going from memory on what I've read somewhere. Someone who's got actual experience should be along soon!
 
I have had both.

In the real world, very little.

In the technical, pixel peeping, non photographic world, the VRII is slightly sharper wide open.

Is it worth the extra wonga?...........depends how deep your pockets are.
 
fracster said:
I have had both.

In the real world, very little.

In the technical, pixel peeping, non photographic world, the VRII is slightly sharper wide open.

Is it worth the extra wonga?...........depends how deep your pockets are.
Click to expand...

So you sold VI and replaced with VII or tother way round?
 
Sold the VrI cos I hardly used it, replaced with an 80-200 AFD,optically little difference. Got some work in that required a 70-200 so bought a VRII. The work required the slightly faster AF and the VR,only reason I bought it,still have it now.
 
Was thinking about getting a VII, but there is a VI for sale on here @ the moment For about £600 less then a VII.......
 
Your brass so your decision mate.

What are you going to be using it for mainly? What type of photography do you do?
 
I've had the VRI & now the VRII & must admit the VRII is sharper than the VRI & did notice the difference.... The VRII is better (maybe because I have it on a D700 as the VRI was on a D300s)

:thinking: but my VRII thermos flask knocks the socks of the pair as that actually holds a damm hot coffee for quite a while & was only £20 :$ :lol:
 
I've got, use and love the VR1
it vignettes a bit. But for what I shoot, horses mostly. It's not a problem.
Plenty sharp enough.Super fast to focus. No experience of the VR2
 
I've had both. If you shoot DX then there's hardly any difference. If you shoot FX, there's far less vignetting and corner softness below f4 with the VRII. That's the main reason Nikon updated it after all.
 
Hi I picked up the VRII at Focus this weekend (£1499 new unopened UK stock from Jacobs) - first impressions are WOW!!! You will not be disappointed.

Can't comment on the comparison to the older VR
 
Going to Focus on Wednesday. Had in mind negotiating a decent bundle price on a VRII and a TC-17EII. May add a 50 1.4 into that.

I use a D700 and an F90X, (I know that the VRII is a G lens!!), and shoot motorsport as I do track days, also places like Goodwood FoS and Revival. Also do karting and try and take pics there.

I have a 16-35 F4 and am looking to add to it for a trip to New Zealand next year. Getting the photographic costs out of the way first! Have thought about the 24-70 2.8 but feel there's to much of an overlap with the 16-35.
 
So get a 28-70, just because Nikon made the 24-70, does not render its predecessor a bad lens.............:shrug:
 
Mouldy said:
Havent seen a 28-70......but then to be fair I havent looked that hard!
Click to expand...

OK, the Nikon 28-70,F2.8 was known as the beast due to its epic weight. It was, and still is, a cracking lens which sits superbly on the D700. It IS substantially cheaper than the new 24-70 if you can find a good second hand one, I was lucky and got such a thing............:)
 
my mk1 is so sharp on my d300 its unreal, on my 700 its not As sharp but still sharp enough even wide open. love this lens.
heres a pic on the d700, wide open no p&p
SJB_0560.jpg
 
Think the VI for sale has sold. Ill take a wander round on wednesday and see how good my negotiation skill are!!
 
I used a VR-I for a while and have since upgraded to the VR-II.
My take is that the newer lens is quieter, focusses slightly faster and feels more solid than the predecessor.
I can't comment on how well the VR works at lower shutter speeds as I haven't had an opportunity to test that yet.
It certainly feels nicer to use - I found the VR-I a bit thin and fragile-looking.

As to IQ, apart from the slight vignetting on FX that you got with the VR-I, I can't see any noticable difference so far.
 
scottthehat said:
my mk1 is so sharp on my d300 its unreal, on my 700 its not As sharp but still sharp enough even wide open. love this lens.
heres a pic on the d700, wide open no p&p
Click to expand...

I don't get why the lens would be sharper on the D300 than the D700, all things being equal it should be sharper on the D700 than the D300, due to pixel sizes on the sensor.
 
redddraggon said:
I don't get why the lens would be sharper on the D300 than the D700, all things being equal it should be sharper on the D700 than the D300, due to pixel sizes on the sensor.
Click to expand...

The VRI was optimised for DX format and not FX which the VRII was optimised for. This is why it vignettes slightly on FX and is sharper on DX.

I believe Canon had the reverse issue with the first version.
 
Dr_O said:
The VRI was optimised for DX format and not FX which the VRII was optimised for. This is why it vignettes slightly on FX and is sharper on DX.

I believe Canon had the reverse issue with the first version.
Click to expand...

I can understand edge sharpness, but in the centre? D700 should be sharper in the centre.
 
boyfalldown said:
I'd love someone to point to a reference for that statement. Its simply not true
Click to expand...

The lens came out in 2003 before Nikon had invented FX so why would you think they would optmise a lens for something they haven't built yet?

You may say these are not factual enough but didn't spend a lot of time looking- short of a statement from Nikon many people may always disagree so I'll not get too hung up about it. Having used both on FX and DX I tend to agree that the VRII is sharper on a D3 (and presumably D700,D3s, D3x) than the VRI.
Link1 and Link2
 
Dr_O said:
The lens came out in 2003 before Nikon had invented FX so why would you think they would optmise a lens for something they haven't built yet?
Click to expand...

err 35mm film was around for a long time before 2003. I don't think it was just optimized for DX otherwise it would of been labeled 'DX'

Dr_O said:
You may say these are not factual enough but didn't spend a lot of time looking- short of a statement from Nikon many people may always disagree so I'll not get too hung up about it. Having used both on FX and DX I tend to agree that the VRII is sharper on a D3 (and presumably D700,D3s, D3x) than the VRI.
Link1 and Link2
Click to expand...

its the optimised for DX bit I disagree with - its not true. Of course the VRII is sharper (and generally 'better') its a 6 year newer design, you're not comparing like with like.
 
Last edited:
boyfalldown said:
I'd love someone to point to a reference for that statement. Its simply not true
Click to expand...

Yes it is - checked with my mate Colin Inglis at Nikon UK (well he was until he resigned this week, which was why he wasn't at Focus this year...lol).

Nikon didn't field an FX body when the VR-I was introduced and were telling everyone that they never would (obviously being slightly economical with the truth, but never mind), hence the very slight vignetting effect at some apertures with this lens.

Otherwise the VR-I and VR-II would have exactly the same element groups with only the VR facility being upgraded for the newer model...

Prior to the 70-200 VR-I which was a DSLR-specific lens, you had the AF 80-200 f/2.8 series of lenses, which had no vignetting issues as they were designed for film cameras.
 
Last edited:
boyfalldown said:
err 35mm film was around for a long time before 2003. I don't think it was just optimized for DX otherwise it would of been labeled 'DX'
Click to expand...

You didn't have DX and FX then- you had digital and film. As a group Nikon created a digital strategy and optmised new lenses against it. I think it's clear they thought they saw the writing on the wall for film and engineered on that basis.

Edit: Missed reply from corba_lite as too busy mulit-tasking while replying- doh!
 
Last edited:
cobra_lite said:
Yes it is - checked with my mate Colin Inglis at Nikon UK (well he was until he resigned this week, which was why he wasn't at Focus this year...lol).

Nikon didn't field an FX body when the VR-I was introduced and were telling everyone that they never would (obviously being slightly economical with the truth, but never mind), hence the very slight vignetting effect at some apertures with this lens.

Otherwise the VR-I and VR-II would have exactly the same element groups with only the VR facility being upgraded for the newer model...

Prior to the 70-200 VR-I which was a DSLR-specific lens, you had the AF 80-200 f/2.8 series of lenses, which had no vignetting issues as they were designed for film cameras.
Click to expand...

OK - why did Nikon not label the lens as such - surely had they intended it to be used as DX only they'd of labeled it as such?

Your point about the element groups isn't true either - I'm sure that majority of the new lenses released over the last couple of years have had revised elements and have certainly gone alot further in changing their designs then just updating a VR unit.

I'm not arguing there were issues with the VR 1, just that Nikon have never said its a DX lens and had they said that, would of printed it both on the box and the literature. If you look on Nikons list of products its still listed as an FX lens and while you reference it being a 'DSLR specific' lens the nikon catalog lists a number of film bodies that will use the full functionality of the lens

So my question still stands, where have Nikon ever said its a DX only lens, and for that matter where do they say its a 'DSLR specific' lens?
 
Dr_O said:
You didn't have DX and FX then- you had digital and film. As a group Nikon created a digital strategy and optmised new lenses against it. I think it's clear they thought they saw the writing on the wall for film and engineered on that basis.

Edit: Missed reply from corba_lite as too busy mulit-tasking while replying- doh!
Click to expand...

That's your speculation as to what was in Nikon's marketting departments mind. My simple question nobody seems able to answer is where do Nikon say this is a DX lens? As above I'm not arguing there are a couple of issues with it though.
 
boyfalldown said:
That's your speculation as to what was in Nikon's marketting departments mind. My simple question nobody seems able to answer is where do Nikon say this is a DX lens? As above I'm not arguing there are a couple of issues with it though.
Click to expand...

Nikon don't say it's a DX-'only' lens - it was supposed to be cross-platform - DSLR and film - they made a cock-up.
They tried to cut corners and save some money, thinking hardly anyone used film any more and that no-one would notice the fall-off while using a DX chipped body.
When they realised their mistake (or rather, had it pointed out to them after the introduction of the D3, they made a rather undignified back-pedal and claimed it was 'optimised' (not specific-to, you notice) for DX.

And then quickly introduced the VR-II...
 
cobra_lite said:
Nikon don't say it's a DX-'only' lens - it was supposed to be cross-platform - DSLR and film - they made a cock-up.
They tried to cut corners and save some money, thinking hardly anyone used film any more and that no-one would notice the fall-off while using a DX chipped body.
When they realised their mistake (or rather, had it pointed out to them after the introduction of the D3, they made a rather undignified back-pedal and claimed it was 'optimised' (not specific-to, you notice) for DX.

And then quickly introduced the VR-II...
Click to expand...

I agree with most of that - but the VR-II was on the normal upgrade time line
 
boyfalldown said:
That's your speculation as to what was in Nikon's marketting departments mind. My simple question nobody seems able to answer is where do Nikon say this is a DX lens? As above I'm not arguing there are a couple of issues with it though.
Click to expand...

I think you're getting hung up on that it should say DX - it's possible for Nikon to have optimised the lens to work with their top line digital offering but due to the cost still want to maximise appeal to those continuing to shoot film and therefore not limit sales with any designation on the lens. Now, this is speculation but I bet I'm damn close:D;)
 
boyfalldown said:
I agree with most of that - but the VR-II was on the normal upgrade time line
Click to expand...

As I understand it - the mistake was known about and the VR-II was supposed to be introduced slightly ahead of the D3...
Anticipated demand for the D3, coupled with the need to stay ahead of Canon or production delays with the VR-II meant the release of those products didn't coincide.
 
Bloody hell, I thought it was a simple question!!!! LOL! Interesting read mind!
 
Mouldy said:
Bloody hell, I thought it was a simple question!!!! LOL! Interesting read mind!
Click to expand...

:thinking: Yep a simple question that gets an in-depth answer :lol:
 
[YOUTUBE]UOArsNMVqGg[/YOUTUBE]



;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top