70-200mm help

[joeturner11]

Hi,

Iam looking at buying the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 MK1 for £900 what they go for in the uk or getting a Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 MK2 for £1300? Is it worth getting the MK2 over the MK1 and I would be looking to use a Nikon 1.7x Converter on either , If anyone has any samples with that set-up please feel free to post

 

[FastGlass]

I'm assuming you mean version 1 and 2 when saying mk1, mk2. When using you're current camera bodies, I would choose version 2. The original 70-200 will vignette on full frames.

 

[gqtuazon]

Hi,

Iam looking at buying the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 MK1 for £900 what they go for in the uk or getting a Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 MK2 for £1300? Is it worth getting the MK2 over the MK1 and I would be looking to use a Nikon 1.7x Converter on either , If anyone has any samples with that set-up please feel free to post

The vII accepts tc better than the vI so I would suggest the VR II.


Sent from my iPhone.

 

[Whiskeyman]

Several reviews I've read also give the VRII an edge optically over the VRI. In addition, I discussed this at a local football game with a professional photographer, and he indicated he thinks the newer version is a "no-brainer" over the old versions.

I've decided it's worth the extra money to get a VRII instead of the VRI. Now I have to decide if I sell my 80-200D or not.

WM

 

[joeturner11]

Thanks for your comments, Iam mainly looking to do wildlife with it on my D300 and 1.7x Converter, I did read the only difference on a DX body with the lens is the VR. If so are go for the Mk1 but are go for the mk2 if there is major difference in optical quality!

 

[gqtuazon]

Thanks for your comments, Iam mainly looking to do wildlife with it on my D300 and 1.7x Converter, I did read the only difference on a DX body with the lens is the VR. If so are go for the Mk1 but are go for the mk2 if there is major difference in optical quality!

Yes the VR2 is much sharper which is why it cost more.


Sent from my iPhone.