Moderators: Greg Downing, E.J. Peiker

All times are UTC - 5 hours

« Previous topic | Next topic »  
Reply to topic  
 First unread post  | 5 posts | 
by Larry Shuman on Mon May 22, 2017 2:12 pm
Larry Shuman
Forum Contributor
Posts: 438
Joined: 25 Nov 2009
What is the difference between the two? I have an old 80~200 D AF that I might replace. A new one is out of the question.



by david fletcher on Mon May 22, 2017 2:35 pm
User avatar
david fletcher
Lifetime Member
Posts: 21385
Joined: 24 Sep 2004
Location: UK
Member #:00525
EJ is probably the best person to answer, but having used both I can be used as a pointer.  

VR1.  Softer at the edges.  I was happy with it's sharpness. Vignetting.  easy to fix in PS.  
VR2.  Crisper all round.  Focus breathing issue.  not a biggy for me.  

Liked both but for me, the VR2 is the better option and currently still use it.  Captive bird so no great shakes but have plenty of examples.  e.g. this was shot on a D7100... host of better options... is at 800 px.   at 1600 is quite a different image with so much more detail.  AF-C with back button focus

Make your life spectacular!

by SantaFeJoe on Mon May 22, 2017 4:25 pm
User avatar
Forum Contributor
Posts: 7320
Joined: 28 Jan 2012
Location: American Southwest
Member #:01817
I don't have either, but this is something to be aware of when buying used:


There are other threads online if you Google"Nikon 70-200VR metal shavings".

Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist.  -Pablo Picasso

by E.J. Peiker on Mon May 22, 2017 6:28 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 84695
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
In order of optical quality it is 70-200 VR1, 80-200 D, 70-200G VR2, and 70-200E - this is from worst to best.

The big problem with the VR1 version of the lens is that it was designed before Nikon introduced full frame sensor cameras and after the film era.  As a result, the lens was never designed for full frame high resolution sensors and therefore is the worst 70-200 Nikon has ever made in the corners.  If you plan to never use an FX camera and always use a DX camera then it is fine but it falls flat on its face on an FX camera in the areas outside the APS-C or DX frame.  The VR2 was introduced shortly after Nikon went all in on FX cameras and its primary reason for existence is to eliminate the softness in the areas outside the DX frame but well within the FX frame.  In the money is no object world, the new(ish) 70-200E is vastly superior to any 70-200 that Nikon has ever made and many tests show it to be the best 70-200 ever made.

Now, the downside to the VR2 lens is extreme focus breathing.  This is a phenomenon where the lens is much shorter in focal length at minimum focus than it is at infinity focus.  The 70-200G VR2 is only approximately 135mm at minimum focus and doesn't really start to resemble a 200mm lens until you get in the vicinity of 40-50 feet from the subject. The new E lens corrects that problem.

Hopefully that helps you decide based on your usage and camera.

by andre paul on Tue May 23, 2017 12:10 am
User avatar
andre paul
Forum Contributor
Posts: 1829
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Location: Sao Paulo - Brazil
i would agree with the above threads from a technical point of view. no doubts.

but i must say that my 70-200 VR I version is my version even with my d810 and d4 , specially for portraits and sport shots. with the d810 it works fine with the 20% crop.

i really like the overall rendition of the "I" version. for me its worst on the tables, but better for my eyes.
i tried changing but i kept my vrI ....

below , fabio fognini , 3 months ago playing here where i live, light drizzle ;-)  d4 /70-200 vrI / f2.8 

good luck there !

andre reichmann
**sao paulo-brazil**

Display posts from previous:  Sort by:  
5 posts | 

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group