70-200mm lens VR-I or VR-II for full frame and DX?

<p><em><strong>70-200mm lens VR-I or VR-II for full frame and DX?</strong></em><br>

How will Nikon VR II lens ( which is built for full frame) perform on APSC sensor cameras like D300s? Will it be Equal to version I or better than that or worse? Is VR II really better than VR1 on full frame cameras,in your personal experience. Pl advise.<br>

I have Nikon F2.8,70-200mm VR I lens version I, which I bought 5 yrs ago. Now version VRII has come. That timeVR1 was best lens because D2X was the best Nikon. APSC sensor was the trend to which it covered well.<br>

Now, I bought full frame D700 . This VR 1 lens is not giving best at corners . Thus I am planning to buy version II. I request all of you to advise me with your experience that if I use Version II lens on APSC sensor cameras like D300s, will it give equally good results as my previous lens was giving. Because, Most of the times I use 70-200 lens on D300s, very rarely on D700. But, whenever I use it should be excellent on both cameras, for that reason I want to buy and upgrade. Pl advise.</p>

<div></div>

<p>If you do not plan on using it on your D700 then you will not experience much difference in sharpness, however many have reported the VR II as being noticably better at reducing camera shake. Nikon claims one stop better than the old one. I myself have been very suprised at the effect the VR has in the newer version, but I haven't done a side by side test of the VR capabilities of the two lenses so cannot personally comment on the VR in the first version.<br />And on the subject of corner sharpness, this lens performs very well from corner to corner both on my D300 and D3s.<br /><br /><br />Here is a test shot I took three months ago with the VR II version. This is hand held at 200m on a D300, 1/13 second and f2.8.</p><div></div>

<p>And here is a 100% crop of the center. As you can see, not much shake for such a low shutter speed at 200mm.</p><div></div>

<p>I also have the VR I version on a D700. At f/2.8 the corner sharpness is indeed not as good as the sweet spot. By f/4 again there is still a difference in the corners - at f/8 my lens is plenty sharp enough in the corners.</p>

<p>For the types of images and types of results I'm after, the corner sharpness or lack of it is of little consequence to me - I <em>can</em> see the difference in many of my shots - but it does not bother me. The lens sparkles in so many other departments that I can easily overlook the corner sharpness "issue". The much vaunted vignetting at the long end on FX also does not fuss me at all either. It <em>is</em> there, however, for me a couple of photoshop proceedures later I can correct this on the rare occasions I get stuck with some vignette. I can afford to upgrade this lens if I wanted to but I love what the VR I version does for me so I'm more than happy to keep it and continue to enjoy the results.</p>

<p>The VR II version is supposed to be even better. Based upon the current price of the VR I lens the new version is probably 'on the money' if it indeed is an improvement over the VR I lens. Only you can ultimately decide and justify an upgrade / change. If your types of exposures demand vignette freedom at the long end and corner to corner sharpness without exception, then you have a legitimate reason to go for the VR II lens.</p>

<p>If you have the money for it and really want it, why not go for it? If the improved VR is important to you, it might be worth the upgrade just for that feature. </p>

<p>VR1 will work on DX and FX. So will VR2. Based on the published MTF curves, the VR2 will be a little bit sharper in the corners than VR1 on full frame and 35mm cameras, and VR2 shake control is better than VR1.</p>

<p>I have the VR1 zoom and I use it with the D700. After seeing the digital images, I find no compelling reason to upgrade to VR2.</p>

<p>I have the VRI version of this lens. I have yet to see a need to upgrade to the VR II version. I shoot sports sometimes hand held and sometimes with a monopod. I rarely even turn VR on since the shutter speed is usually fast enough to eliminate camera/hand shake.</p>

<p>There is much better corner sharpness on the new VRII lens if you are shooting FX, but I see little difference when on DX. Additionally, the VRII version isn't quite as long as the VRI. This has been discussed ad-nauseum in other threads, so I won't elaborate here.</p>

<p>So, if you have the money, and feel the need for the additional capabilities of the new VR II system, I say go for it. I'd probably rent one prior to purchase so I could really test the differences, but my suspicions are that I would not feel compelled to buy the new version since I have a perfectly good copy of the old version I use regularly.</p>

<p>RS</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The even shorter answer is that if you're not going to be shooting on a tripod and printing big, it will make little difference. I'd only upgrade if I had loads of money laying around or needed it for clients.</p>

<p>According to Nikon: <small>*Effect of VR System varies by photographer.</small><br>

But they even write this: "Image blur caused by camera shake generally occurs with shutter speeds slower than 1/[focal length] in 35mm format equivalent. Nikon's latest VRII lenses offer the ability to shoot at shutter speeds 4 steps <strong>faster</strong>."<br>

from: <a href="http://www.nikon.com/about/technology/core/software/vr_e/index.htm">http://www.nikon.com/about/technology/core/software/vr_e/index.htm</a></p>

<p>Secondly, Nikon claims to work 70% the time, if only half (or less) of your testshots are good, then it's wrong. You expect 30% not working anyway</p>

<p>Also your bottle was shot at a distant too close (around 2.2 m) so all the letters (and other details) are too big which makes it hard to see the shaking. The focal length of a zoom lens is also shorter at closer distant</p>

<p>The newer II version of the 70-200 is a better lens overall: it is sharper in the center and edges so that it works much better with teleconverters; its VR is about a stop better, and @ 200mm, its corners are fine on FX.</p>

<p>If you can afford it, get version 2, but version 1 is a good lens itself. I am planning to add version 2 myself in the coming months.</p>

<p>thanks everybody.</p><div></div>

<p>I have the vr2 lens and use it on my d700 and my d300s and I don't think you could ask for a sharper lens. I just shot a football game with it on the 300s with the nikon 1.4 converter and the results were like opining a christmas present!!!</p>

<p>Just for a little comparison, the following are shots from Nikon P60 and Insignia 10mp (both without antishake)</p><div></div>

<p>and its 100% crop, there is much noise but not much shake</p><div></div>

<p>These are by low end p&s Insignia (Bestbuy brand) in BestBuy</p><div></div>

<p>A 10mp for only $50 last Xmas, I returned it because of bad IQ</p><div></div>

<p>I have to agree with Shun. The VRII lens is better. I have been shooting my VRII for about 8 months now and strongly prefer it over my old VR I lens.</p>

<p>Hi,<br>

I had this question myself last year when I wanted to buy a 70 - 200 mm VR. I eventually bought the VR1. I agree with most of the guys that VR 2, though I have not used it myself, would yield slightly better result overall and has better VR technology. If you want to seriously use it on an FX body, I think VR 2 is a better option. Even on DX bodies I saw some better quality pictures with VR2. I would like to add one more point here. VR 2 has focal length issues at closer focusing distance. This focus breathing issue has been discussed in this forum before. If you use the longer focal length regularly, you might well consider this issue. In fact this was the reason that I opted for VR1, since I shoot mostly at the telephoto end.<br>

Cheers,<br>

Srinidhi</p>