200-400 mm type I versus type II

[Miha]

<p>I just found a demo version of the old (VR I) 200-400mm lens for about 60% of the new model price. Since I have been looking for an AF telephoto lens to replace my old AI-s 400 f/3.5 ED-IF for quite a long time i need your advice about the difference between the two types of the lens. I just found the technical data - better VR, nano coating etc but I wonder what these differences mean in the real life. Is the price right?<br>

Regards, Miha Hadl.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Some people comment that version 2 is better, but other than VR and nano coating, the two vesion have the same optical formula.</p>

<p>I cannot be happier with the 200-400mm/f4 AF-S VR version 1. I mainly use it with VR off on a tripod anyway, so VR II has no appeal to me. Unfortunately, version 2 is also a lot more expensive since it was introduced after the Japanese yen appreciated greatly in 2009/2010.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>I have not made such a direct comparison between 200-400's, but between the VR 70-200 Mk I and Mk II, and between VR 200/2 Mk I and Mk II, the later (nano-coated) versions show increased contrast which is especially noticeable at maximum aperture. This is also true of the 85mm f/1.4 D vs. G. The lack of flare also changes the colour of the images. Whether these observations are true for the two 200-400's I do not know.</p>

<p>The 200-400 is difficult to hand hold (it is long and front heavy), but some photographers do hand-hold it nevertheless. I look at them with awe and disbelief. ;-) For these users, I should imagine the VR II may make some difference. My experience with VR and VR II versions of the 70-200 and 200/2 is that the VR II seems to make the lens more stable and produce fewer odd unsharp results when hand-holding at marginal shutter speeds. However, even with VR II, hand-holding a lens of 400mm focal length may be difficult and is not likely to yield as good results as when mounted on a solid tripod with VR off.</p>

<p>If you put on a TC-20E III, the 200-400 becomes a 400-800mm f/8, and of course such a lens should be mounted on good support. I tested this combination on tripod, and at 800mm there was a lot of vibration with VR off. Turning VR on made it easier to compose shots at 800mm. However, I have no real-life information as to whether the <em>version</em> of VR used in the lens makes much difference in such a scenario.</p>

<p>The lower price for the Mk I seems fair. Do check that the lens shows no external signs of misuse (while demoing lenses in stores, inexperienced users can mishandle big glass. E.g. they might lift the lens from the camera instead of the lens and so on.)</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>I have not made such a direct comparison between 200-400's, but between the VR 70-200 Mk I and Mk II, and between VR 200/2 Mk I and Mk II, the later (nano-coated) versions show increased contrast which is especially noticeable at maximum aperture.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ilkka, that is misleading comparison. As I pointed out earlier, the 200-400mm/f4 AF-S VR versions 1 and 2 have the same optical formula. Version 2 has nano coating and improved VR, but there is no optical difference otherwise. Therefore, one wouldn't expect huge differences between the two.</p>

<p>I own both versions of the 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR. Besides updated VR, version 2 has a different optical formula, which is noticeably improved. Version 1 is well known for its corner softness (on FX) at 200mm; version 2 has no such major issue. On version 2, at 200mm, the effective focal length is greatly reduced at close focusing. On version 1, the focal length reduction is not as serious at close distances.</p>

<ul>

<li>The 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR version one has 21 elements in 15 groups.</li>

<li>Version 2 also has 21 elements but in 16 groups.</li>

</ul>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Shun, true, the 70-200's and 85's have different optics, but the optical diagrams given for the VR 200/2 and VR 200/2 II suggest the design is similar apart from the nano-coating which is only present in the second version. BTW I would not use the word "identical" without actual information of the precise shape and position of each element which is only known to Nikon. The 200/2 II (with its only publicly known optical difference being the nano crystal coat) shows a marked contrast increase wide open vs. the first version (this has been demonstrated by others in a side by side comparison) as well as the typical reduction in colored flare which introduces cross-talk between regions of the images lit by different sources (my observation). Stopped down the quality differences are reduced. Nikon are typically very conscious of the value aspect of their optics and they would not introduce an additional manufacturing step of an allegedly fragile coating into an already expensive lens without merit. However, I have not seen a side by side comparison between the two 200-400/4's and it is not possible for me to access both at the same time.</p>

<p>Even though there is no definite proof, I believe the nano coating is largely responsible for the contrast increase in the VR 70-200 II vs. 70-200 (the latter had a high propensity for flare and ghosting). I was very particular not to make a claim that this generalizes for the 200-400, which you will see if you read the last sentence of the first paragraph of my previous post.</p>

[Barry Clemmons Photography]

<p>Some of my best nature photos are with the 200-400mm VRI. Whenever Nikon updates a lens or body that I own, I don't hesitate to purchase the update if I think it will provide a significant improvement vs the cost over the old lens/body. The three times I have not purchased the update was the D4, 85mm f/1.4 G, and the 200-400mm VRII. In each case I did not see a compelling reason to spend the additional dollars. As Shun pointed out, the 200-400mm versions 1 and 2 have the same optical formula. The extra stop doesn't matter when used on a tripod and I had not had any issues with flare on my version 1. The price sounds good as long as you closely examine the lens as Ilkka stated.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>How much is it being offered for?</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>When Nikon introduced version 2 of the 200-400mm/f4 AF-S VR in April 2010, I wrote a preview for photo.net, and we verified with Nikon that there is no change to the optical formula from version 1: <a href="../equipment/nikon/200-400-vr2/preview/">http://www.photo.net/equipment/nikon/200-400-vr2/preview/</a></p>

<p>Besides nano coating and VR II, version 2 also has the newer A/M AF mode in addition to M/A and manual on version 1.</p>

<p>I read a comment from Bjorn Rorslett that version 2 is better focusing to longer distances. However, for me, since the 200-400 is mainly for wildlife and sports photography, my subjects are typically 10, 20, maybe 30, 40 meters away. I don't really care about how it works focused to infinity. For a long tele, if you capture something near infinity, you are shooting through a lot of air; image quality is usually less than ideal, anyway.</p>

<p>In any case, if yon can afford version 2, I would get that. That lens is about $6750 new at B&H. 60% of that would put a used version 1 around $4000. That price seems kind of low and I would carefully check its condition.</p>

[roger_howe2]

<p>Go to Thom Hogan's website. He discusses both versions of the 200-400 in some detail. Click on the Nikon tab near the top of the home page, and then find the 200-400. Also, near the bottom of the Nikon page he lists "Exotics," which is a discussion and comparison of all of the long telephotos--including the 200-400.</p>

[rick_chen]

<p>From my experience for upgrading from 200 f/2 VR and 300 2.8 VR to version II's, I really cant tell any difference. Perhaps 1 in every 20 shots or so the contrast might be a bit better. The shots produced by my 200-400 VR I seems to be on par with my 200, 300 and 500. Shun's right, the 1 additional stop of VR performance might not justify for that much added cost...since you definitely need a super sturdy tripod for these lenses</p>

[stevenseelig]

<p>I recently took the 200-400 VR II lens on safari with an D800 as the body. It is very difficult to hand hold, but I did not use a tripod. Instead I used a Red Pod attached to the tripod mount and placed that either on my knee (curled up) or some other fixed object. I left the VR on. I was pretty pleased by this relatively simple solution for camera stabilization. (I know the website says it is for compact cameras)<br>

If you want to see some of the images, stop by my blog (http://www.e2photo.net/blog/safari-in-south-africa.html)<br>

I rented the lens.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

Rich, both the 1st and 2nd versions of

the VR 300/2.8G are nano-coated so it's

not surprising you'd find no difference.

The 200 however only received this

coating in the second version.

[ShunCheung]

<p>Concerning the 200mm/f2 AF-S VR and 300mm/f2.8 AF-S VR, as far as I know there has been no optical formula changes in the respective version 1 and version 2 in both cases. Version 2 have Nikon's VR 2, which was Nikon's "latest" VR technology until the just announced 70-200mm/f4 AF-S that has "VR3."<br>

Both the 300mm/f2.8 AF-S VR 1 and 2 have nano coathing, so the only real difference is VR vs. VR 2. However, the 200mm/f2 AF-S VR version 1 has no nano coating. Therefore, for the 200mm/f2, VR2 has both nano coating and the newer VR as improvements.</p>

<p>Thom Hogan's 200-400 review has some details about the differences he experiences with version 1 and version 2: <a href="http://www.bythom.com/nikkor-200-400mm-lensreview.htm">http://www.bythom.com/nikkor-200-400mm-lensreview.htm</a></p>

<p>He highlights the differences between the versions in blue text.</p>

<p>According to Hogan:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>optically and physically the lenses are identical</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For whatever reason, his version 1 is actually a tiny bit sharper than version 2, probably due to some very minor sample variation. I can't imagine version 2 gets worse in general.</p>

<p>I am extremely happy with my 200-400mm/f4 AF-S VR version 1, even on demanding cameras such as the D7000, D800/D800E and D600. I don't see any reason why I need to upgrade it.</p>

[Mary Doo]

<p><< I just found a demo version of the old (VR I) 200-400mm lens for about 60% of the new model price. >></p>

<p>Miha, if the lens is in excellent condition, IMO the huge discount is well worth it. I took VR1 to Africa a few years ago, then took VR2 to Africa last year. The image quality and handling of both seemed similar to me. Not being a "pixel peeper", I am not aware of any appreciable difference in "image quality" between the two.</p>

[Mary Doo]

<p>Thought to share two images with you - hope you will like them:</p>

<div></div>

[Mary Doo]

<p>I have resized and resaved the JPG several times - they may look less sharp than what the original files are. Guess what I am trying to say is that both versions seem to produce similar results as far as sharpness is concerned. </p>