Nikon 70-200VRII, maybe not really worth the upgrade from:::

[arthurking83]

The original series 1 model? :confused013

PZ has now tested and uploaded the figures on the 70-200VRII to their site:

70-200VRII (http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/511-nikkorafs7020028vr2ff?start=1)

and for reference, here's the original 70-200VR figures (http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/457-nikkor_afs_70200_28_ff?start=1)

There is definitely some improvement if you use raw data to compare the new vs old lens, and the only real (big)improvement seems to be the far edges of the frame at 200mm, as was always a concern with the original lens.

As more of a landscaper, I'd have to say I'd go for the VRII version as I'd want the improved corner performance .. just in case I needed it, but as a dedicated portrait, bird or sports shooter there isn't enough of an increase to justify the added expense.

I've yet to see a h-u-g-e influx of older lenses available on ebay either, and the VRII is still a tad expensive at the grey market price of $2900 that I recently saw it at!

[arthurking83]

OH!! .. and what does a real 200mm lens look like on a hi res full frame sensor!? :D

This is one of not too many lenses I'd happily waste lots of money that(I don't currently have) on (http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/457-nikkor_afs_70200_28_ff?start=1) :th3:

[nick351]

Im currently debating whether to spend extra for the VR II or find a good used VR I, mainly for portraiture.

Im leaning to the VR I if I can find a good used one.

[arthurking83]

Yeah, if it was primarily for portraits, the money saved in getting the older lens at a decent savings allows you more funds redirected to other gear, like a good used 85/1.4, or a 105/2 DC. or whatever.

I think at close to $3K this lens is at least $500 too much, and if it were $2.2K it'd be a no brainer.. new lens for sure :th3:

but then again, I'm not the type to need to have the best of anything, and if that were the case it'd be a 200/2 over a 70-200VRII for sure anyhow.

[johndom]

I have the VR 1, its a cracker. people with the older 70-200 are always borrowing it. It was worth every cent of $2500 or so i got it for. The VR2 will no doubt be easily as good. Buuuuut If you have one already i would say take more photos rather than buy more gear.

[nick351]

Yep will definetly be keeping an eye out for a used one, on FX its a nice range for portraiture. Would be a good addition to my 24-70.

[arthurking83]

... people with the older 70-200 are always borrowing it. ....

:confused013

Older than the VR1?

Is there a 70-200mm Nikon lens older than the VR1?

[kingwheatie]

pphheeww, just what i wanted to hear "but as a dedicated portrait, bird or sports shooter there isn't enough of an increase to justify the added expense."
I have just gone FX and have yet to fire any shots in anger at a race meet.
Not having to upgrade my longer lens is a bonus and can channel some funds to the
lower and medium end:D

[kiwi]

I think AK is right, I'm not rushing out to upgrade it

[Slide]

It also comes down to if you are shooting DX or FX. There is no gain in upgrading for DX shooters and FX shooters probably need to go and try it before they make the leap.

[N*A*M]

so glad i bought my VR when the prices were good and it continually impresses me with every shooting
reports of sparkles and porous looking light baffle castings in the VR II made me even more glad i stuck with the old one