Nikon 70-200 VR or VR11?

trevorbray

trevorbray

Messages
9,162
Name
Trevor
Edit My Images
No
Can you help, I'm going to buy one of these. Probably used, is it worth the extra £400 or so for the VR11?
I've heard about vignetting on the VR (man in the shop syndrome). It wont affect most of my shooting. Just concerned that when I'm shooting head and shoulder portraits the possible vignetting will be too noticeable.
 
The vignetting on the VR1 was never an issue for me, but I would go for the VR2.

As a lens it handles better then the VR1 and is also quicker to focus. Most importantly new you can pick one uop now from £1,600 and a VR1 new will cost you £1,400 (there are a number of second hand VR1s around though) but the VR1 will now lose value very quickly compared to the VR2. A second hand VR1 is ca £1k so a lose of £400 against new, but a Vr2 won't lose value at all.

Hugh
 
It depends how much you value the VR at all...I've been 'struggling' with a non-VR 80-200 following an unfortunate 'bashing into a wall' incident a few months ago...to be honest it hasn't been much of a drama...I've found that for much of my work i don't really need VR at all...

The vignetting on the 70-200 VR is very slight and actually, since I add a bit to a lot of my images anyway, wasn't an issue either.

If I were buying new, I'd buy the latest, regardless, but if you're buying 2nd-hand, just go for a mint example of whatever you feel is right for your needs...

The VR (Mk1) will indeed fall in price now the Mk2 is more readily available...
 
I'd buy the VRI unless there was only say £100 difference in price.

I used to use my 70-200mm for birds and stuff (puffins at Skoma) and the way the 70-200 VRII gets "short" up close, I would have needed a 1.4x TC on the newer version....
 
Had the vr I. Now have the vr II. Its a great lens. I do prefer it over my vr I. And that was a cracking lens in its own right. One of Nikons best. The vr II takes the new 2 x converter extremely well. So you will have a 140-400mm f5.6 for those sunny days.

Kev.
 
I would go for a second hand VR1 unless you are shooting landscapes with it. For portraits and similar, even on an FX sensor, I have never had any issues with slight corner blurring or vignetting (quite often that enhances the shots) and on a DX it just isn't an issue at all.
 
infra_dread said:
I would go for a second hand VR1 unless you are shooting landscapes with it.
Click to expand...

Never understood why anyone would shoot a landscape with a honking 2kg zoom f2.8 lens, when you are going to be stopped down to f/11.... and given you going to be on a tripod for landscape, no need for VR.
 
Thanks Guys, deffo looking for a Mint VR1, seen one at £1099 with 3 month warranty.
 
puddleduck said:
Never understood why anyone would shoot a landscape with a honking 2kg zoom f2.8 lens, when you are going to be stopped down to f/11....
Click to expand...

Flexibility. One moment you're shooting a landscape, the next a portrait.

puddleduck said:
and given you going to be on a tripod for landscape, no need for VR.
Click to expand...

Why is it a given that you're going to be on a tripod to shoot landscapes?

There are many photographers who don't want to lug around a tripod but would still like to shoot a landscape scene when they happen upon one. Not everyone wants to be the next Charlie Waites and while tripods have their place you have to be pretty narrow minded to think that you can't shoot great landscapes without them.
 
NorthernNikon said:
There are many photographers who don't want to lug around a tripod but would still like to shoot a landscape scene when they happen upon one. Not everyone wants to be the next Charlie Waites and while tripods have their place you have to be pretty narrow minded to think that you can't shoot great landscapes without them.
Click to expand...

So use a 70-300 VR instead?

Sorry but IMHO this lens (or the previous one) is massive overkill if you just happen to want to shoot a landscape.

Sorry but I can't see why anyone would choose to use a huge f/2.8 lens for landscape, as at f/11 pretty much any half-decent lens is going to do a job well enough.
 
puddleduck said:
So use a 70-300 VR instead?

Sorry but IMHO this lens (or the previous one) is massive overkill if you just happen to want to shoot a landscape.

Sorry but I can't see why anyone would choose to use a huge f/2.8 lens for landscape, as at f/11 pretty much any half-decent lens is going to do a job well enough.
Click to expand...

You've managed to quote the part of my post that didn't respond to your original point. I can easily see why anyone would just go out with a couple of zooms, and if they can afford the Nikkor f:2.8 zooms then why wouldn't they take them? If you've already got a 70-200mm f:2.8 why should you have to go out and buy a 70-300mm too?

And where did you get the idea that anyone wanted to buy a 70-200mm f:2.8 just to shoot landscapes with it anyway?
 
Trevor - I swapped from VR1 to VR2 2 weeks ago.

The first thing I noticed with the new one is improved sharpness wide open. I use the lens mostly with people and the sharpness is definately improved using my tried and tested "how sharp is the eye" test :)

I wasn't bothered about any vignetting but I would say the new one is probably brighter around the corners - until I add my own vignette of course!!

I'd also say colours and contrast are improved.

Focusing is quick but I felt the original was fine too so I wouldn't swear it's better (although I'm accept it is from what I've read).

I like the size of the new one - it reminds me more of how the Canon 2.8 IS is built - a bit fatter basically.

That's my "real world" view of the thing. I'll leave the technical stuff to those that care.

Oh - and, yes, I would recommend the VRII over the VRI. But the VRI is still a superb lens in its own right. Got the spare £s - get the new one. Want to treat the wife - get the old one.

HTH
 
I'm with Ryan here.

I was on record as saying I was happy with the VR1 and I was.

Until I tried the VRII. The lens is nothing short of sublime. The sharpness wide-open is quite staggering and has a clarity that the VR1 never gave me.

There are a fair number of shots with it from last weekend's wedding here.
 
trevorbray said:
Thanks Guys, deffo looking for a Mint VR1, seen one at £1099 with 3 month warranty.
Click to expand...

Quite honestly, it's going to be a couple of years (at least) before the VRIIs start to sell for that kind of money, used :|. If price is really driving your decision and you want to buy now, then why not :shrug:!?

trevorbray said:
Oh No ! I've read the review
now I'm lusting over VR11
Click to expand...

Well then, this one won't help either :D ...

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70-200mm-ii.htm


I can't help much with a comparison between the two, as I have never used the VRI model, but the VRII is an amazing lens :eek:. Over and above all of the superb optical elements (no pun intended) of it's performance, the difference between the VR function on this lens and on the other two (VR) lenses I have had (the FX 70-300mm and the DX 55-200mm) is really noticable. I regularly get ultra-sharp, hand-held captures at speeds of 1/8th or 10th of a sec now (and almost 90% of 1/15th sec shots are perfect, too), which really opens up a lot of possibilities. OK, I don't often need to do this, but it's great to have the option :).

Finally, if I was to respond to your original question, I would say that the vignetting on the VRI actually looks great in the example shots that I've seen and I too tend to add my own to 80% of stuff that I shoot ;).

The more noticeable difference between them is the "foreshortening" effect that the VRII has, as a trade off against it's closer minimum focusing distance :|. Opinion is divided here, as both have their pros and cons. It really depends on whether you want the possibility to get a frame full of face, when taking portraits at 200mm in fairly close proximity to your subjects, or whether you'd rather have the option to be able to actually get focus when standing 4 to 4 & 1/2 feet away from your subject, where the VRI would still be OOF :shrug: (useful in a press scrum, I would imagine :naughty:).

Tough decision, but I can't see many people regretting buying either of them.
 
The VR1 was a great lens. For me though it was never a lens I really enjoyed using - I'm not sure if this was the handling or something else.

The VR2 is something I'm looking forward to using in anger - for the reasons described by Guy and Ryan above and for me it just feels better on camera
 
boyfalldown said:
The VR1 was a great lens. For me though it was never a lens I really enjoyed using - I'm not sure if this was the handling or something else.

The VR2 is something I'm looking forward to using in anger - for the reasons described by Guy and Ryan above and for me it just feels better on camera
Click to expand...


Wait until you bolt the new 2 x converter onto it. :eek:


Kev.
 
Hmmm.. starting to regret reading this thread...



Memo to self.. there's nothing wrong with the VRI you were perfectly happy until you read this..there's nothing wrong with the VRI you were perfectly happy until you read this..there's nothing wrong with the VRI you were perfectly happy until you read this..there's nothing wrong with the VRI you were perfectly happy until you read this..there's nothing wrong with the VRI you were perfectly happy until you read this...
 
treeman said:
Hmmm.. starting to regret reading this thread...



Memo to self.. there's nothing wrong with the VRI you were perfectly happy until you read this..there's nothing wrong with the VRI you were perfectly happy until you read this..there's nothing wrong with the VRI you were perfectly happy until you read this..there's nothing wrong with the VRI you were perfectly happy until you read this..there's nothing wrong with the VRI you were perfectly happy until you read this...
Click to expand...

the trouble is mate, the seeds planted now
 
There is another way of looking at it....

Will you actually make any more money by buying the new version? If the answer is no - then stick with what you have. If the answer is yes, then you have some budgets to do before deciding if it is an economic business decision.

If the money aspect of it doesn't matter at all, then it doesn;t matter which lens you have because the pictures you make with either will be fantastic - or at least, buying the new one won't make poor pictures into good ones. So if you can make good images, you will with either.
 
Thanks all, Mark, very kind of you.
In the end it came down to budget. Just pressed the button on a Mint VR1. Pressed it again for a SB900 with the theoretical change.
Just hope my best buddy doesn't buy the VR2 !!

I'm already twitchy though.I was perfectly happy with my Canon 70-200 2.8 Non IS........for a while, yep had to have the IS
Gotta be happy with VR1, the pots now empty.
 
trevorbray said:
I've heard about vignetting on the VR (man in the shop syndrome). It wont affect most of my shooting. Just concerned that when I'm shooting head and shoulder portraits the possible vignetting will be too noticeable.
Click to expand...
I got the impression the vignetting is more of an issue with FX sensors as the DX hides it. Hence why the VR2 version is attractive now there are more FX cameras.

NorthernNikon said:
Flexibility. One moment you're shooting a landscape, the next a portrait.
Click to expand...
Still, a tripod sorts you out for a portrait, or a flash.

Really for me the main reason for a 2.8 is for action photography where you need a fast shutter speed and with the light conditions and considering the focal length, you can't achieve this without a wide aperture.

I'm often tempted to get the 70-200, but then I keep thinking, "why do I need it?". Not really sure I do. Not the f/2.8 side of it. A good quality 70-200 zoom, yes it would be useful, but it would be fine if it was an f/4 at cheaper price. Though I tend to shoot mostly at the long end, so my 300mm f/4 is fine enough. Although the VR is an attraction though for shooting prop aircraft at a low shutter speed.

Though one thing, I thought the original 70-200 VR was cheaper than it currently is? Has it always been this price or have prices gone up because of demand for the old model? Saw one place was asking over £2k for it, and yes that was the VR1 version! :eek:
 
Just to show you how the vrII performs :

DSC_5583.jpg



It was a miserable winters day. Had a lot lately.



Kev.
 
deadkenny said:
...

Though one thing, I thought the original 70-200 VR was cheaper than it currently is? Has it always been this price or have prices gone up because of demand for the old model? Saw one place was asking over £2k for it, and yes that was the VR1 version! :eek:
Click to expand...

From what I've seen, prices went up by up to 20% last March, along with a whole load of other camera equipment from Japan, across all brands. Sigma even put some of their prices up my 30% (IIRC), all due to the 'global financial crisis' and exchange rate issues.

I think that the current (realistic) 'new' prices for UK stock are: VRI - £ 1,400 and VRII - £ 1,700

Anything else that you see should just be considered and anomaly :shrug:,



Anyway, Trevor, congrats on the purchase (the SB900 really is peerless amongst the Nikon range of Speedlights, IMHO, so no conflicts there ;)). Don't forget to come and back and let us know how you get on with the VRI :).
 
Naboo32 said:
I think that the current (realistic) 'new' prices for UK stock are: VRI - £ 1,400 and VRII - £ 1,700

Anything else that you see should just be considered and anomaly :shrug:,
Click to expand...

I think they're even closer then that now WHE have the VR 2 for £1,646 and the cheapest you can get a new VR1 is £1,450
 
boyfalldown said:
I think they're even closer then that now WHE have the VR 2 for £1,646 and the cheapest you can get a new VR1 is £1,450
Click to expand...

I stand corrected ;).

I paid more than that for my VRII, but the money's long gone and I couldn't care less now :D - it's a lens that will last me a lifetime (well, 10 years at least ;)).
 
sorry to gate crash......

as the long promissed new version of the 80-400 still no where in sight, I'm wondering if this coupled up with a TC is worth considering instead? Does anyone know how much the TC would effect the IQ?
 
GoLotus said:
sorry to gate crash......

as the long promissed new version of the 80-400 still no where in sight, I'm wondering if this coupled up with a TC is worth considering instead? Does anyone know how much the TC would effect the IQ?
Click to expand...

If you have a look in the Lens Lust section of the Nikon Cafe you can see a number of threads on this issue. I am thinking of getting the 70-200 VRII with a TC-20E III. Still cannot make up my mind :shrug:
 
johnaalex said:
If you have a look in the Lens Lust section of the Nikon Cafe you can see a number of threads on this issue. I am thinking of getting the 70-200 VRII with a TC-20E III. Still cannot make up my mind :shrug:
Click to expand...

Get them. Amazing!! ;)


Kev.
 
Raw unedited. Converted to jpeg and resized.

400mm f5.6 iso 800

DSC_6097raw.jpg



Converted and resized with one pass of sharpening.
DSC_6097edited.jpg


Cropped.
DSC_6097crop.jpg



Very basic I know, but my first shot with them and was at work at the time.


Kev.
 
johnaalex said:
If you have a look in the Lens Lust section of the Nikon Cafe you can see a number of threads on this issue. I am thinking of getting the 70-200 VRII with a TC-20E III. Still cannot make up my mind :shrug:
Click to expand...


thanks - easier said than done when you enter the wrong email addy when you sign up though :lol: :bang:
 
Amazing :thumbs:!

I'd say that's a far cry better than the VR I with the 1.7 TC! Far better by all accounts.

Thank you for taking the time to post this.
 
kevshore said:
Very basic I know, but my first shot with them and was at work at the time.


Kev.
Click to expand...

thanks for the pics - very useful. What camera were they taken on (am assuming a D3???), and how far away was the post?
 
GoLotus said:
thanks for the pics - very useful. What camera were they taken on (am assuming a D3???), and how far away was the post?
Click to expand...


It was taken with the D3s. I would say the post is about 50ft away. :shrug:

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