tomglass Loc: Yorktown, VA

I currently have a 80-200mm f2.8 and am looking to "upgrade" to a 70-200mm f2.8 with VR, and am looking for some advice regarding the VR and the VRII versions. I use my 80-200 now mostly for sports (a lot at night) so not having VR has not been an issue. However, I have also been using the lens indoors (not sports) and for shots of players not playing (fast SS not needed), where VR would be very helpful to be able to slow the SS down and reduce the ISO. Anyway, I'm wondering how much difference there is in the VR between the two lenses? How big a difference in the Nikon stated "3 stops vs. 4 stops"? Would the VRII be worth the extra $$$? I am using a D7200.

Thanks for any advice or information anyone may have.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

I took Rockwell's review of the 70-200 VR older model and found a used copy at KEH. His point was the corners were soft, but on a DX camera such as the D7200 that weakness does not exist as the soft edges were cropped out. The new model is a higher rated lens, but all for full frame and with a higher price.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

I would also recommend you consider the Nikon 70-200mm F4 VR lens, unless you really NEED a F2.8 lens. It can save you $1000 and it actually rates slightly sharper.

tomglass Loc: Yorktown, VA

So, from your perspective, the VR on the older lens works well? Thanks!

tomglass Loc: Yorktown, VA

Thanks! I thought about that one, but really do need the f2.8 for the night soccer games... the high school lighting is really bad... :(

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

My girlfriend is Nikon and I got her the 70-200 for soccer for her son with her D7100. The lens is true professional, but also all metal and a bit heavy. A solid piece of equipment. It's perfect sharp at f/2.8 and f/4 with a 1.4 extender. The VR is great too. By way of comparison, the older version of Canon IS are less capable than the VR on this lens.

tomglass Loc: Yorktown, VA

Thank you for that! Sounds like the older one would do what I need (want)! Thanks again!

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

If you didn't find this before, here's the review I mentioned: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70200vr.htm

Ctrclckws

Thom Hogan also recommends the first version 70-200 VR for dx cameras, maybe not the higher resolution of the newer cameras, though.

juicesqueezer Loc: Okeechobee, Florida

I have the 70-200 f2.8 VRI and use it on my D3. No problems with being soft, in my estimation. I shoot lots of sports and it is a great portrait lens as well. The VRI sells in the neighborhood of $1100 and the VRII is closer to $1800. Both are 9+ used.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

I have always said that camera companies don't do very well with names. When you see VR and II on a lens, it doesn't necessarily mean that it is the second version of VR. When Nikon introduces a second version of a lens, it will add "II" to the description, and that usually follows the letters "VR." Of course the second version of VR also has the "II" attached. Confusing.

Getting back to your question, I would always get the newer, better version of equipment, provided the pricing isn't' too different. VR II sounds good.

VR II -
http://nikonasia-en.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/7554/~/difference-between-vr-and-vr-ii
http://www.differencebetween.net/technology/difference-between-nikon-vr-and-vr-ii/

Lens comparisons -
http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/lenses
http://lenshero.com/lens-comparison
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx
http://www.lenstip.com/lenses.html
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare

Walt R Loc: eastern tn

Had the 70-200 vr2.8 verison a great lens , upgraded to the new verison 70-200 vr ll 2.8 much better . I shoot indoor sports . You really do need 2.8 .
Walt

Rhankins70 Loc: Florida

An alternative could be the Tamron 70-200 f2.8. I've used that on Nikon D610 for awhile now. The Flickr link below will give you an idea of what this lens can do. Could save some $ without sacrificing quality

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

Where do you get that it is actually sharper? When you put both lenses on a D7100 from DxO Mark. The VR II 2.8 is sharper than the f/4.

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-AF-S-Nikkor-70-200mm-F28-G-ED-VR-II-on-Nikon-D7100-versus-Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-70-200mm-F4G-ED-VR-on-Nikon-D7100__406_865_1071_865

The comment that others made that you get sharper results because of the crop is unproven.

If you put the f/4 on D610. You will get a sharper image than on a D7100. DxO has not tested this lens on the D7200 but has done so on a D7100.

You want to do a side by side comparison, f/2.8 Vr II vs the f/4 check out

http://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/camera-lenses/all-lenses/index.page#

One of the differences can be found in the number of ED elements, 7 vs 3 for significantly reduced chromatic aberration. The f/2.8 is significantly heavier. The filter sizes are different 67 MM for the f/4 vs 77 MM for the 2.8. I have several other Nikon lens at 77 mm. It is nice not have to have different filters or adapters.

DxO Puts the light transmission rate significantly better on the 2.8 than the f/4.0 which translates to faster AF.

The f/4 is not weather sealed as the f/2.8. This sealing just does not keep out just rain but fog, dampness, cold.

The price difference is significant but that alone can not be all that one considers.

VR II is just better than VR.

Alright - stay in character and call me names....I am waiting. (moron, etc.)

tomglass Loc: Yorktown, VA

Thanks, Walt. Did you notice much difference between the performance of the VR in the two lenses?