Nikon 70-200mm f2.8: I have the VRI, whats the difference between this and the new upcoming VRII?
784399
If you have VRI and a DX camera, I think you should keep it, unless you shoot directly at a light source (the new one has N - Nano coatings which reduces flare) or want to utilize the benefits of VR II. that means you should be shooting handheld at really slow shutter speeds. If you have a FX body and shoot landscapes with VRI lens, you may not see corner to corner sharpness. The new version is essentially viewed as an upgrade to FX shooters (mostly pro shooters at the moment) who want corner to corner sharpness in all their shots. Save yourself some money and enjoy your old one. Get a good wide angle lens for that cost. Again, all this, if you are on a budget. If you are a Nikon fanboy, you wouldn't have posted this question here.. Gud luck with your choice...
1276663
I've been using the 14-24mm f2.8 for a year now. Tack sharp! No lens creep. I was worried about no filters to protect glass also. Built in lens hood protects front element well enough. Lens cap fits OVER hood when not in use. I am comfortable with that. No VR doesn't seem to be an issue, as a lot of light comes through the glass and allows higher shutter speeds I feel. I generally shoot with a standard ISO of 400 to kick it up the speed a bit. Great lens. I also use the 24-70mm and 70-200mm lenses, both at f2.8 as well. Throw any pic from these three lenses on you monitor and you could cut yourself on the sharpness. LOL. I've been using the 14-24mm f2.8 for a year now. Tack sharp! No lens creep. I was worried about no filters to protect glass also. Built in lens hood protects front element well enough. Lens cap fits OVER hood when not in use. I am comfortable with that. No VR doesn't seem to be an issue, as a lot of light comes through the glass and allows higher shutter speeds I feel. I generally shoot with a standard ISO of 400 to kick it up the speed a bit. Great lens. I also use the 24-70mm and 70-200mm lenses, both at f2.8 as well. Throw any pic from these three lenses on you monitor and you could cut... » Read More I've been using the 14-24mm f2.8 for a year now. Tack sharp! No lens creep. I was worried about no filters to protect glass also. Built in lens hood protects front element well enough. Lens cap fits OVER hood when not in use. I am comfortable with that. No VR doesn't seem to be an issue, as a lot of light comes through the glass and allows higher shutter speeds I feel. I generally shoot with a standard ISO of 400 to kick it up the speed a bit. Great lens. I also use the 24-70mm and 70-200mm lenses, both at f2.8 as well. Throw any pic from these three lenses on you monitor and you could cut yourself on the sharpness. LOL. « Show Less
2078344
I own both. Bought one of first 18-200s made in Japan to go with my first dslr: D50 that I got for a trip to the Bahamas. Have wonderful images I still enjoy. Now have lightweight D5000 and super D7000. Bought 18-140 for light weight to hike w/D5000. Use 28-200 w/D7000 otherwise. Both focus quickly, iq is similar. Both have VR but 200 has active mode for shooting while moving, which I love. So 140 wins on weight, price, while 200 adds focal length and versatile VR.
382298
The 2.8 gives you slightly better VR and one more stop over the f4. You could always take advantage of Amazon's 30 day return policy and try the f4. If it works well for you, keep it. If not, return it for the f2.8 model. Your current lens has NO VR, so either lens would be a big improvement.
1268392
Besides the focal length and the "Vibration Reduction " feature, almost nothing. A while back the price for the 10-30mm was higher for the VR. Now that they are the same, like someone said, why bother unless you just like to have a full camera bag like myself.
963592
vr means they are vibration resistant (helps take the shake out) & you can select auto (motorized) or manual focus. this is for the 55 & 200 mm lens not for the 500mm lens whis is manual. i am still learning and having a ton of fun with it.
2124328
To my knowledge, the only difference is color. Since it is the same model, I doubt Nikon made any other significant changes.
263538
i just couldn't justify spending another $1500 MORE over the 80-200mm for 10 mm more low end range and VR .. which is just marketing hype in all but a few situations. its right up there with polarized lenses.
1254979
N8TE - Thanks for the advice. I will look into the AF-S (especially the 70-300 VR) but it's good to know my old lens is still an option.
1509566
The lens focus is not as fast as the 70-200 VR but it works well outdoors. Indoors it hunts for a focus in AF-S but is reasonable. You may want to consider a mono pod to keep motion blur out of the image in a dark church. Higher shutter speeds will be required to match the lens focal length. Also, a higher ISO may be required to keep up with the shutter and F-stop. I use it for weddings and love the images and I always shoot in manual mode. Hope this helps.
1200245
I'm going to suggest a different question. Do you really want a newer version? I recently bought a used 300mm F4 for 950. Its sells new for around 1300. This lens has been due for replacement for quite some time. So i had to ask myself the same question you have, when will a replacement come out, because it is certainly overdue. Problem is, when it does come out, it will be of lesser build quality, it will remove the aperature ring(G lens), add VR, and cost well over 2000. While I would like the VR on this lens, is it worth the huge proce difference, and the reduced build quality. I also used the same logic on a 17-35 i just bought. So what I would suggest, is to judge the current lens on its merits. The only gripe I would have with this lens is that it is AF and not AF-s. It will be much cheaper than a new one, probably much better build quality, and who knows when a replacement might arrive.
1196603
Here's the deal:F8-older model==> NON wide lens, better quality photos, faster sensor resulting SLIGHTLY better pictures in low lightF18-newer model==> Wide lens, good pictures but slightly less sharper than F8 due to wider lens and more crammed pixels onto the same sensor.And the reason wht the FZ8 get better reviews than the F18 for the points mentioned above.SS
305767
I had both lenses and sold the 28-300 after I got the 28mm 1.8. No contest at 28mm. Now i use the 70-300 VR for long range and switch to the 28 prime for wide angle. The flexibility in aperature is also huge for me. If you are just shooting snapshots at 28mm for 4x6 or 5x7 prints you won't be able to tell the difference, but if you are shooting for money or larger prints, the 28mm will resolve much higher clarity especially in the corners on FX.
1268393
The 11-27.5 does NOT have VR and is more compact than the 10-30 lens. The 10-30 lens has VR and the image quality (to this non-pixel peeper) between the two lenses is equally good.
382296
if your camera model has a better sensor that handles high ISO's well (i.e. little noise) the 70-200 F4 is fantastic ... I kept my F2.8 ( fantastic lens but much heavier plus mines an older version W/VR1) but never use any more as the F4 coupled with a D800 is a great combo
1380696
The new lens is smaller and lighter, performs just as well and is (or was) slightly less expensive. The downside is that is a tad slower at the long end --6.3 v. 5.6. Some say it doesn't take as sharp of pictures. I don't agree and the trade off for how much small and lighter it is, is well worth it to me. It is even lighter than my older 18-200VR. For a everyday lens that can take photos between 18 - 300, It is ideal for me. If I need sharper, I'll use a dedicated lens for that shot!
2205822
While I don't have the newer camera, Nikon hasn't changed the lens mount or technology. It will work perfectly. The two combinations I've found interesting are with the 50/1.8 and the 70-300 VR zoom. The first yields a 135/1.8 with beautiful backgrounds and the zoom's long range is wonderful for some applications.