Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 Mk I or II?

P

polochick

Messages
229
Name
Liz
Edit My Images
Yes
It's time to replace my 80-200 2.8 and I can't decide if the extra cash is worth it for the VRII (as opposed to the VR I). I've read Ken Rockwell's review which leads me towards the II, but want to get a 400 prime as well and don't want to bankrupt myself!

Does anyone have any experience of the two lenses (hopefully someone who has upgraded from one to the other) - specifically in low light situations (think overcast english field) my use is for fast sports, 90% will be at f2.8, and (hopefully) always above 1/750. I am pretty sure I will never use the VR.


Many thanks for any advice,
Liz
 
polochick said:
.....want to get a 400 prime as well and don't want to bankrupt myself!

I am pretty sure I will never use the VR.
Click to expand...

Reading thru and just wondered - Haven't you just answered the question in a way yourself by what you have said :shrug:
 
If you don't need the VR why change from the 80-200mm (I'm presuming it is the AF-S version) as that is a mighty sharp lens.
 
polochick said:
I am pretty sure I will never use the VR.
Click to expand...
Until I read that line I was going to advise getting the VRII version as it really is a great improvement on the VRI version. The original is a fantastic lens (I have one and it is my favourite lens) but Nikon have done a cracking job in improving the VR and the focus speed.

If your use is for fast paced sports with shutter speeds of around 1/750th and you'll never use VR then don't spend the extra on the VRII, the original version of the lens will save you money that you can put towards the 400mm lens.

Of course if money was no option I'd say go for the VRII. It's worth the extra, well worth it.
 
Two very different lens now, the Mk11 has a considerably shorter effective focal length over the original MK1, shot at 200mm. I suspect this was done to remove the small amount of vignetting on full frame. I also suspect there is little difference in picture quality between the two especially as the MK1 is stunning to start with. Personally I would save your money and go for the MK1 you will not be disappointed.
 
Hi Liz, you commented on my first Polo pics the other week. All those were taken on the 70-200mm VRI, wide open. I can't fault it, It gives a slight vignette at the edges but I like that. Save your cash, as I've found out, you really need that 400mm for outdoor Polo! :)
 
gpa said:
Two very different lens now, the Mk11 has a considerably shorter effective focal length over the original MK1, shot at 200mm. I suspect this was done to remove the small amount of vignetting on full frame. I also suspect there is little difference in picture quality between the two especially as the MK1 is stunning to start with. Personally I would save your money and go for the MK1 you will not be disappointed.
Click to expand...

Surely a 70-200 VR1 and a 70-200 VR2 should be the same focal length (i.e. starts at 70... or am i missing something?
 
Wow thanks for all of the responses so far.

Hacker said:
If you don't need the VR why change from the 80-200mm (I'm presuming it is the AF-S version) as that is a mighty sharp lens.
Click to expand...

My 80-200 is almost as old as me. I've taken some of my best non-polo shots with it, it's super sharp if the subject isn't running around but sadly it's really not up to it for fast movement. This is the version I have. And the 3rd, 4th etc shots are just not in focus, it's too slow to cope in continuous shooting mode, which is what I need it for.


Reading thru and just wondered - Haven't you just answered the question in a way yourself by what you have said
Click to expand...
Well, maybe, but I was hoping that there might be some other advantages in the newer version, (other than the removal of the vignetting which I had already read about) e.g. faster focussing, sharpness...

Save your cash, as I've found out, you really need that 400mm for outdoor Polo!
Click to expand...
I really need a 400 too lol.

Overall I'm getting the impression that there is a big difference between the two lenses, but that it's mainly in the VR upgrade, and correction of vignetting for FX.
The end use of the images will be for publication (high quality magazines) and for large print sales, hence I'm keen that I get the most sharp lens, and that it's the best of it's peers with regard to speed of focussing.
 
The coverage at the point of focus is larger on the new lens to eliminate the minor vignetting on the VR-I - it's still the same focal length on both of them though...
 
cambsno said:
Surely a 70-200 VR1 and a 70-200 VR2 should be the same focal length (i.e. starts at 70... or am i missing something?
Click to expand...

You are I'm afraid, there were oodles of posts of user that had upgraded to the MK11 and then were very unhappy at Nikon Sneaky change. I actually cannot remember what the main issues were other than it has become a very different lens both over distance and close up workand the first batch had quality issues with some paint/coating peeling away. A mute point for me really as I am more than happy with the MK1

Do a search on Nikon 70-200vr focal length
 
gpa said:
the Mk11 has a considerably shorter effective focal length over the original MK1, shot at 200mm.
Click to expand...

This is only when the lens is used at, or near, it's closest focus distance. Otherwise it's a 200mm lens just the same as any other 200mm lens. Have a read on dpreview about this.

I've no experience with the VR I version, but can honestly say the VR II version is utterly outstanding. That said of course, those that have recommended the AF-S version of the 80-200 are bang on. If you don't need VR, then don't pay for it. AF speed will be nearly identical, so the 80-200 AF-S gets my recommendation as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top