Mary51 Loc: Carneys Point, NJ

I'm replacing my Nikon AF-S 55-200mm 4.5 -5.6 G ED VR lens with either the AF-S 70 - 200mm f2.8 VR or VRII lens. I own a d200 body with 30,000 shutter releases, so I figure it's good for another 5-10 years of photos, and I'm in NO WAY interested in video. The reviews of the two lenses that I've read justify the doubled price of the VRII by the improved close-up focus the VRII can deliver, the 50% distortion reduction, and the fact that the VR capability is so good that a hand-held photo shot at ss 1/8 sec. is tripod sharp.

I can get the VR in nearly new condition for around 1200 or a very good VRII from Amazon or B&H for 2050.

Your thoughts would be appreciated.

Indi Loc: L. I., NY, Palm Beach Cty when it's cold.

If I had the money, I'd get the VR II. It's an investment, and if you didn't buy it, you'd probably be agonizing later.
Also, I prefer to buy from Amazon; mainly because I have Amazon Prime, because I can usually get free shipping and often, no state sales tax if the vendor is outside NY. I know most vendors in NJ don't charge me tax to ship to NY. No shipping and no tax can get that lens for a flat $2050.

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

Good luck with that! VR is a godsend but there are limits.


I have both at work and really not noticed that much of a difference.
It would depend on what you are shooting.
What kinds of things are you shooting?

Both are exceptional lenses!!!

Snappin053 Loc: Southern Vermont

Go with the VR, it's a masterpiece. Think about an FX also, it will make it shine.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Mary, a big welcome to the Hog.
You probably dont want to hear what I'll advise, and I'm sure I'll get some crap for it. I would replace the camera with a current model and just use the lens you have untill which time you can afford to replace it. If I remember the d200 is only about 10mp. That is less than half of today's cameras. No matter how good it was in it's day, the camera will make a huge IQ difference over the lens. The d200 will always be as good as it was, but just can't possibly produce the results of a modern camera. The tech is just not there.
Mary, explore the thought, but it's just my two cents. ;-)
SS

Moles Loc: South Carolina

Welcome, and you will find either the 70-200's a wonder compared to the 55-200. I have owned both lenses, and I like the VRII better, not because of the VRII, but that it's smaller and lighter. I do mostly sports shooting at high shutter speeds, so whether it has VR at all matters little to me. If you shoot hand-held at slow shutter speeds, maybe the VRII is a better. Either way, you can't go wrong. I have seen 70-200's so heavily used, most of the paint was worn off, and still going strong!
bet.quote=Mary51]I'm replacing my Nikon AF-S 55-200mm 4.5 -5.6 G ED VR lens with either the AF-S 70 - 200mm f2.8 VR or VRII lens. I own a d200 body with 30,000 shutter releases, so I figure it's good for another 5-10 years of photos, and I'm in NO WAY interested in video. The reviews of the two lenses that I've read justify the doubled price of the VRII by the improved close-up focus the VRII can deliver, the 50% distortion reduction, and the fact that the VR capability is so good that a hand-held photo shot at ss 1/8 sec. is tripod sharp.

I can get the VR in nearly new condition for around 1200 or a very good VRII from Amazon or B&H for 2050.

Your thoughts would be appreciated.[/quote]

Mary51 Loc: Carneys Point, NJ

I'm going to Ireland in May and I'll be shooting taverns, castles, cityscapes, seascapes, landscapes, lighthouses, and portraits. For low light and portraits I really love my fixed focal 50mm Nikon f1.8. Here are some sunny, outdoor shots taken with the 50mm.

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)

Mary51 Loc: Carneys Point, NJ

I'm planning on upgrading to a full frame sensor Nikon in the near future, but for this trip it will have to be the old d200. Maybe I can rent the better body.

Mary51 Loc: Carneys Point, NJ

Thanks for the advice. I went with the VR for $1200 and am checking into renting a newer body.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Right. If you're going to spend that much money for a lens, why not get the better of the two? If you don't, you'll always regret it.

Eventually, you'll get to hate that lens, and you'll stop using it. You'll put it on ebay and sell it for just a few dollars. By then, the price of the VRII will be much higher, or there will be a VRIII. You'll wind up getting a second job or working overtime to get the $4,200 for the VRIII.

Get the VRII and save yourself the misery of trying to save money. :D

sueyeisert Loc: New Jersey

I would call Nikon and ask what the difference is between the VR and VR11 then decide.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

There's a lot to read about them here.

http://www.google.com/search?q=nikon+70-200mm+VR+vs+VRII&oq=nikon+70-200mm+VR+vs+VRII&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.11688j0j4&sourceid=chrome&espv=2&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8

346pak Loc: Texas

I own a D200 and a D600. The D200 is a very capable camera and while it doesn't have all the pixels or bells and whistles of a newer full frame, I have taken MANY award winning shots with that 10mp camera. Everyone's situation is different and while many of us spend all our waking moments and extra cash on our hobby, others may not have that desire. If the D200 fits your needs why not indulge in a new lens? The lens WILL make a difference in the end result. My .02

OddJobber Loc: Portland, OR

At least you got that part right, SS. :D

OddJobber Loc: Portland, OR

Jerry, this is a case where I'm not sure how tongue-in-cheek your response was. Some of cannot do all the upgrades we want. In this example, I would have to save 24,000 beer cans for the VR. The VRII would take 41,000 beer cans and that's a difference of 2125 gallons! :shock: