70-200 VRII or not

Marcel

Happily retired
Staff member
Super Mod
I have a question for which I can't seem to find an answer.
Is the non VR 70-200 the same optic as the VRII?
I'm kind of reluctant to spend the extra $1,000 for the VR alone, but, if the lens is a re-design, then maybe it could be worth it.
But, since I'm not making a living with this thing, I wonder.

Have any of you worked with the non VR and the vRII?
If yes, is there a real IQ difference besides the VR?
Thanks,

marcel
 

ohkphoto

Snow White
Marcel, Joseph posted a nice write-up of the VRI and II systems in his blog.
My personal preference is to pay more for fast glass. I figure I can always use a tripod if there's any possibility of movement.
 

johnwartjr

Senior Member
My Dad has the 70-200 VR and I have the 70-200 VRII. Both are amongst Nikon's best lenses, although I have used many versions of the 80-200 and then the 70-200.

There are some differences. This article is pretty good:

70-200mm AF-S VR II Lens Review by Thom Hogan

The whole VR or not VR thing can be debated all day, the 80-200 version that's a couple generations old without VR is one hell of a lens that can be had for even less!
 

Joseph Bautsch

New member
Both lenses have the same quality glass. I doubt you will see any difference between the two because of the glass. To buy the VRII or non-VRII is a matter of your shooting style and what you shoot. If you never use a long lens except on a tripod or monopod then you probably don't need the VRII. I have owned both and I would buy the VRII without hesitation. I've done a lot of nature shooting over the years, hand held, from moving cars, boats, planes, and on the run. I've had to take quick shots with no time to stabilize the camera much less put it on a tripod or use a monopod. Also I don't have steady hands like I use to. When I got two new lenses with the VRII, the 18-105mm and a 70-300mm, I wasn't real sure about the extra money I spent for the VRII. I did some testing and, hand holding, found I could get up to 3 stops additional stability and sometimes 4 stops if I had an extra moment to stabilize the camera before taking the shot. (Your results may be different but that is what works for me). The VRII has meant a lot more shots that are sharp and clear of camera shake at much lower light levels than without the VRII. However, even with VRII I still do my best to follow the rule of a shutter speed no less than equal to the focal length of the lens, 300mm then it's 1/300 sec. or higher.
 

Ranie

Senior Member
I have a question for which I can't seem to find an answer.
Is the non VR 70-200 the same optic as the VRII?
I'm kind of reluctant to spend the extra $1,000 for the VR alone, but, if the lens is a re-design, then maybe it could be worth it.
But, since I'm not making a living with this thing, I wonder.

Have any of you worked with the non VR and the vRII?
If yes, is there a real IQ difference besides the VR?
Thanks,

marcel


Hi Marcel, there is no 70-200 non-VR. The old 70-200 F2.8 VR is also called the VR 1 version. The newer version is called VRII.
I have the version 1 and have extensively played with the VR II.
They have the same optics aside from the Nano coat of the version 2 (explained here: Nikon | Technology | Nano Particle Coating)
With the VRII, you get an extra stop over the VR 1 (Nikon | Technology | VR (Vibration-Reduction))
On Focusing - I find it the same, but some VRII owners swear that the VRII focuses faster.
In terms of IQ, I cant find any difference between the two
There have also been talks that the VR1 is softer on the corners when using full frame bodies (FX) but on a cropped sensor (DX), you wont experience this.
The VR II is also not a real 200mm lens compared to the VR1. It lacks the reach compared to the VR1. (Photography, Digital Camera & Lightroom Tips — FroKnowsPhoto » Nikon 70-200 VR2 UPDATE)
 
Top