Nikon 70-200 vr1 image quality

the_local_jacko

the_local_jacko

Messages
326
Name
Martin
Edit My Images
No
Until recently I've been a happy D800 plus Nikon 24-70 f2.8 shooter. I decided I needed more reach so I saved to get hold of a mint second hand copy of Nikon 70-200 vr1 from a well known photography shop. I've taken it out for a few shoots and I can't help but feel a little underwhelmed. Maybe I'm spoiled with the 24-70 but the 70-200 vr1 seems to be quite noticeably different to the sharpness of my 24-70. It's ok at full size images but as soon as I view images cropped then the IQ starts to fall off quickly. I've tried tests with high shutter speeds, VR on, various lengths and apertures. It seems to be better performing towards the 70mm end. I'm going to try fine tuning to see if that makes a difference.

I just wondered what other people's experiences are with this lens? I assumed that it would be relatively close to the 24-70 in terms of IQ or is it a case that I'm asking too much of it?
 
It's utterly superb. On paper, the VRII is superior, but unless you shoot at the optimum aperture, on a tripod, with mirror locked up and remote release, I really doubt you'd actually see the difference. I've shot on both regularly with a D800... I'm fairly confident I'd not be able to tell the two lenses apart without looking at metadata.
 
The one we had at my old job was excellent also. Prettymuch the only thing I miss about that job actually.
 
Thanks for your replies.

This concerns me a little then to be honest as its certainly not what I'm experiencing. That's not to say the results are terrible but I obviously want to get the most from it. I'll run the fine tune on the D800 and then give it another run out.
 
But you don't have the VRII to compare it to. Shooting at long focal lengths on a D800 is gonna require some extreme care to get the most from it.

It will be slightly sharper at the short end than the long... that's what I found... but then again, the VRII is slightly weaker in the middle I found. Overall though, they're both excellent, and certainly not something you'd notice. Post up a RAW file shot with it... let us give you an opinion. Use drop box, or sky drive, or something like that.
 
Last edited:
I shoot a D800 with a 70-200, a 300 and 500 F4, the D800 requires greater user technique to get the best from it.

Saying that, when you nail it, by God is it nailed.

Try upping your shutter speed, any user error gets cruxified with the D800.
 
I had an old 80-200 for a while. Later on I had a brand new copy of the 70-200 VR II. End result - you wouldn't notice much difference, unless you really pixel peeped. The advantages being the sealing, the VR of course, the re-sale value and the general look and feel of the lens to use. I felt it was a luxury I didn't need, I just wanted it because everyone raved on about it. I didn't use it enough to warrant keeping. Not when you can get similar-ish results from a lens 20 years old, and 1/4 the price.

If you're finding the lens off, then it's more likely that one copy you got. As there should be very little difference otherwise in end result.
 
You will likely find that the AF tuning with only work with a set focal length also. Both my 24-70 and 70-200 are different at each end of the zoom. With the 24-70 I set it closer to 70's setting and it works fine through out the range, but with the 70-200 it doesn't. Set it for one and the others out,quite noticeably until you stop it down a fair bit.

I have a feeling that the d800 in general has more AF issues and not just the ones with severe left AF issues. All my lenses preformed better in regards to needing fine tune on my d700 compared to the d800 I had and E I now have. Im sure someone will be along to slate me for that statement though.
 
I you shot at f/2.8 on full frame then the vignetting of the MKI stands out with plain backgrounds, never an issue for me and he subjects i shoot but it was a problem for some and the major reason why Nikon decided to Make the MKII more FF friendly.

But like David did say, if you shoot at the optimum aperture then it really isnt noticeable
 
Last edited:
Talking about these two lens, how can you tell if you have the MK1 or MK2 versions ?.
 
swiftflo said:
Talking about these two lens, how can you tell if you have the MK1 or MK2 versions ?.
Click to expand...
But seriously

The MKII has the N for the nano coat on the id plate and the VR lettering is in gold unlike the MKI where the VR lettering is red

The MKII also has a stupid lens hood and if you stand the lens upright it'll tend to fall over as the petal hood edges are quite rounded off, first thing i did was to buy a MKI chinese hood off ebay and use that instead
 
Last edited:
the_local_jacko said:
Until recently I've been a happy D800 plus Nikon 24-70 f2.8 shooter. I decided I needed more reach so I saved to get hold of a mint second hand copy of Nikon 70-200 vr1 from a well known photography shop. I've taken it out for a few shoots and I can't help but feel a little underwhelmed. Maybe I'm spoiled with the 24-70 but the 70-200 vr1 seems to be quite noticeably different to the sharpness of my 24-70. It's ok at full size images but as soon as I view images cropped then the IQ starts to fall off quickly. I've tried tests with high shutter speeds, VR on, various lengths and apertures. It seems to be better performing towards the 70mm end. I'm going to try fine tuning to see if that makes a difference.

I just wondered what other people's experiences are with this lens? I assumed that it would be relatively close to the 24-70 in terms of IQ or is it a case that I'm asking too much of it?
Click to expand...


This lens should be blowing you away. It's better than your 24-70.

Sounds like it possibly needs tuned to your body.
 
Last edited:
Ok thanks once again. I might take a few images and pop them up here to gain the thoughts of others. If its as clear cut as it sounds then I'm convinced I am simply not just asking too much.

Regarding shutter speed. I've taken that out of the equation by shooting at 1/800 and beyond on a bright sunny day with similar results.

I've never shot beyond a 105mm on my old crop sensor so I will need to get to get to grips with the 200mm end of the lens on the D800.
 
Gary Coyle said:
But seriously

The MKII has the N for the nano coat on the id plate and the VR lettering is in gold unlike the MKI where the VR lettering is red

The MKII also has a stupid lens hood and if you stand the lens upright it'll tend to fall over as the petal hood edges are quite rounded off, first thing i did was to buy a MKI chinese hood off ebay and use that instead
Click to expand...

Many thanks for your answer, good to know that I have both the 24-70 and the 70-200 MK11's.
 
swiftflo said:
Just noticed my 24-70 f2.8 does not say VR on it.
Click to expand...
... And there's a fairly good reason for that, which is that your 24-70 f/2.8 doesn't have VR.
 
As a follow up to this. I performed some fine tuning and it seems -16 is the sweet spot for the lens on my D800. It was set at 0 so that may have had a lot to do with my concerns as its a fairly big variance. My 24-70 is bang on 0 in the fine tune. I've done quite a lot of tests with charts after tuning it and seems better. I'm gonna give it another run out tomorrow.
 
Do you think -20 has nailed it or is it simply a case that its as far as you could go?

I'm looking forward to getting out with it tomorrow. Hopefully I will get more like the results that I was expecting.
 
I give it a good run out yesterday and results are night and day compared to before I did the tuning. I am very happy with the lens now and its performing how I hoped it would when I bought it.

Thanks once again for everyone's feedback.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top