Nikon 70-200 F2.8 VRII - any quirks to be aware of?

DoubleCheese

DoubleCheese

DoubleCheese

Associate
Joined
26 Jun 2005
Posts
1,487
I've just hired this from Lenses for Hire for a week and want to know if there are any quirks specific to it to consider. It's for a trip to Rwanda which will include a Gorilla trek, a ceremony, landscape and possibly some street.

Thanks!
 
As above the only quirk to know is the weight.

I recently used a VR1 for a wedding and the weight of the thing began to bug me after a couple of hours.

I personally wouldn't like to thing I was humping it up the mountains for a Gorrilla trek but I'm sure you'll be fine if you are prepared for it.
 
Just be aware that it is such a good lens that after renting it you will end up buying it!

It is not that heavy, around 1.4KG, much more manageable then the bigger tele lenses. You probably don't want it hanging around your neck on a standard neck strap but otherwise it is easy to handle and hand hold. Tripods as always help a lot.
 
Damn, I've just opened the box and it looks like they've sent the older VR1 lens! Liking at images online its almost definitely the older lens. I recall reading issues with it and the newer (at the time) FX bodies, including my D700.
Pretty gutted. It's too late to replace it I leave at 6am tomorrow.
 
That's a fairly shocking mistake tbh - I've only ever heard glowing reviews about Lenses for Hire - I know I'd be seriously annoyed if they sent me the wrong lens with no time to replace it.
 
DoubleCheese said:
Damn, I've just opened the box and it looks like they've sent the older VR1 lens! Liking at images online its almost definitely the older lens. I recall reading issues with it and the newer (at the time) FX bodies, including my D700.
Pretty gutted. It's too late to replace it I leave at 6am tomorrow.
Click to expand...

Contrary to internet myth the old lens doesn't really have any issues on FF, the absolute extreme corners are slightly darker and softer than one might expect but not so much as to course an issue -most of the frame is just as sharp as the new VRII. Furthermore that is really only noticeable at 200mm, the new lens has more focal breathing so if you pull back to 170mm you get very similar performance. The only really difference between the 2 is when TCs are used, the new lens works better with them.
 
D.P. said:
Contrary to internet myth the old lens doesn't really have any issues on FF, the absolute extreme corners are slightly darker and softer than one might expect but not so much as to course an issue -most of the frame is just as sharp as the new VRII. Furthermore that is really only noticeable at 200mm, the new lens has more focal breathing so if you pull back to 170mm you get very similar performance. The only really difference between the 2 is when TCs are used, the new lens works better with them.
Click to expand...

The VR1 was designed with crop sensors in mind though. It also resolves less mp detail compared to the new F4 VR version, which is right below the VRII F2.8 in terms of image quality. I own the new F4 as the VRII was out of my reach budget wise, but I could have got the older version but didn't as the F4 has far sharper results on a D600 body.
 
James J said:
The VR1 was designed with crop sensors in mind though. It also resolves less mp detail compared to the new F4 VR version, which is right below the VRII F2.8 in terms of image quality. I own the new F4 as the VRII was out of my reach budget wise, but I could have got the older version but didn't as the F4 has far sharper results on a D600 body.
Click to expand...

The differences are not that big really:
http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/511-nikkorafs7020028vr2ff?start=1
http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/457-nikkor_afs_70200_28_ff?start=1

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1280/cat/13
http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/134/cat/13

Photo-zones definition of extreme means the far corners, boarder means all the edges. SLRgear don't really show any corner issues but the VR1 is slightly softer overall at 200mm but sharper over the rest of the range which is actually what a lot of tests find (VR1 is sharper than VR2 up until about 170mm). From SLRgear the VR is about 0.5 units less sharp which according them is not a visible difference - poor lenses have corners that measure at 7-10 blur units in SLRgear! The VR2 really shines when it is used in conjunction with TCs.

If you look at the DPreview map on a FF D3 it is really only the extreme corners that have moderate softness, many lenses perform far worse over a much larger area.

It is a bit of a myth that the 70-200VRI's edges are soft due to digital camera having crop sensors, the pro market was still largely using film back in 2000! When used bare the VR1 is just as good as the VR2, with TCs the VR2 handles them much better. the f/4.0 is also a stunning lens.
 
Last edited:
Interesting info. I've been using the DxO mark tests for the lenses on the D600 (which is my current body). They suggest that the VR1 can only render around 15mp of image, whilst the F4 VR is good to 18mp, which is even higher than the VRII. Also the transmission is superior on the F4. On a 24mp sensor, **** like that starts to count lol.

When you use a D800 body instead, the F4 leaves the VR1 in the dust according to DxO and still is sharper than the VRII. Lovely piece of kit.
 
Its official, I'm an idiot. It's the right lens.

[/idiot mode]

Lenses for Hire emailed me first thing to query it and offer to get me a replacement today which is fantastic.

Now to catch the connecting flight!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom