SkintBrit said:
golf, golf, golf........I can see you still have so much to learn. The first rule of 'rationalising' is NEVER EVER compromise. When you have a few more years experience at it, you'll realise that you should have bought the 85 1.4, and THEN have rationalised the purchase of a D4, because anything else would let down such a great lens! Oh well, I suppose we all have to start somewhere. :-)

SkintBrit (AKA Grand Master Rationaliser)

Touche (or is it too-shay :P) buddy. For us young Jedi's (in the photography world that is), a little "compromise" here and there is not always a bad thing when you have objective to reach. Which I'm happy to say I have. The 1.4's will be there once I see the need for them; but for now I'm being conservatively rational.

Cheers

golf007sd said:
@SkintBrit went with the 85 1.8 and put the savings toward my future purchase of the D4 :P

golf, golf, golf........I can see you still have so much to learn. The first rule of 'rationalising' is NEVER EVER compromise. When you have a few more years experience at it, you'll realise that you should have bought the 85 1.4, and THEN have rationalised the purchase of a D4, because anything else would let down such a great lens! Oh well, I suppose we all have to start somewhere. :-)

SkintBrit (AKA Grand Master Rationaliser)

TaoTeJared said:
Very few ever want to admit it because of newbies - but yes, the 70-200s are that good of a lens. If your photography skills are great, the 70-200's will take it to another level. There is nothing in the consumer line that even comes close to it. I have never seen a long time working pro not have one.

I totally agree with TTJ :-)
I bought a VR1 - little used but immaculate - at the time the VR2 had just been released. The price difference at that time was equivalent to almost $1,000 so it was easy to rationalise that a lens that had been a standard, and reputable pro lens for several years should be a big step up for an amateur even if there was a new vr2. Coming from an 18-200 vr2, the improvement in brightness, sharpness and the "snap" it added to autofocus was dramatic.
I've never tried the 70-200 VR2 but the VR1 is definitely a great lens. I guess i'll find out how good it really it is ina couple of months when I have a D800 to put it on :-)

Cheers

you need to stop the 20eiii down to f8 to be sharp. is aussie rules a winter sport?

I got a 70-200VRI last year for ~$1400 for use on my D7000. The increase in quality over my previous lens was quite amazing, and then this year I got a TC-17eII, which I have used to take photos of the kids playing Aussie Rules footy, and once again, I've been amazed at how good the images I can achieve when everything goes right (thats currently abut 10% of the time, but wow, that 10% is amazing :-). If I had the cash then a VRII would be great, but I'm more than happy with the VRI on the D7000 with the TC17EII.

My question is, has anybody tried the 70-200VRI with the TC-20eIII.

One more rationalizations...something I am an expert at doing...:-)
The 70-200 is a range which can be used so much. This lens can take in all the shots we do with 85f/1.8's, 100 f/2'2, 135 f/2's adn of course 200mm. In addition, if one wants more range the VRII is excellent with the TC-20EIII. So, the VRII is IMO the way to go and forego any of the others until later.

Now, obviously, in low light, one will need those other fast lenses, but for 90% of the time, shooting at f/2.8 is quite adequate.

For the really absurd, this can save about $6,000 because you can ad that TC-20EIII and for less than $3,000 have 400mm f/5.6. Ha, ha, ha. So, this is what to say, "Honey, I saved us $6,000 today.".......

I hope epthomas found the way to all the humor...

@proudgeek +1
@SkintBrit went with the 85 1.8 and put the savings toward my future purchase of the D4 :P

Very well 'rationalised' proudgeek, I say the same things to myself when deciding between f1.4's & f1.8's :-)

I had a similar decision to make about 9 months ago, when I decided that my 18-200 was no longer cutting it on the long end and wanted something of a similar quality to my 17-35. Unlike many on this forum, I do this for fun as opposed to money, so any time I make a purchase of that type I have to find some way to justify it (or as my wife would say, rationalize it).

Here's why I ended up going with the VR2:
1. I'd heard and read in a few instances that the VR1 was softer in the corners, particularly wide open on a full frame camera. While I'm currently shooting a DX body, I do intend at some point to upgrade to FX. At the time the D800 was still a hot rumor, but you knew something was very far along in the pipeline. I figured why spend $1,500 on a lens that may not perform optimally with a camera I could potentially buy. If it's not the 800, maybe it's the 600, or the 900. Better to keep your options open.

2. At the end of the day, the difference in between a used VR1 in excellent condition and a new VR2 was about $700. Now $700 out of pocket isn't exactly chump change, particularly for someone not expecting to pay for the lens through their photography. But think about how long you'll have something like this—maybe 10 years? Given how much time I spend on this hobby and how much enjoyment it gives me, could I justify an extra $70 per year?

I felt I could.

Do what msmoto?

Aha, I see what you meant now. As you say, I think their question should be answered here already. I concur with your decision to close the other thread :-) LOL.

epthomas

Want some input on the 70-200mmf/2.8 VRI vs VRII

The VR1 is very different to the VR2. The whole design is different, unlike many other lenses VR1/VR2 upgrade (I got the VR1 300 2.8 instead of the VR2).

The VR1 is not sharp at the edges wide open! The VR2 is sharp everywhere!
The VR1 doesn't breath very much. The VR2 breaths down quite a bit at minimum focus, though I don't remember it being 135mm equiv.

Both are not as sharp as a prime.

casperwb said:
yikes
so we are down to : the big expensive pro lens will allow you to take better pictures.
as opposed to, the lens is better for a specific type of photography, like indoor sport etc.
still to get a lens that makes my photography better, they just make it easier to do what I want to do.

Very few ever want to admit it because of newbies - but yes, the 70-200s are that good of a lens. If your photography skills are great, the 70-200's will take it to another level. There is nothing in the consumer line that even comes close to it. I have never seen a long time working pro not have one.

yikes

so we are down to : the big expensive pro lens will allow you to take better pictures.

as opposed to, the lens is better for a specific type of photography, like indoor sport etc.

still to get a lens that makes my photography better, they just make it easier to do what I want to do.

AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G VR I sample images:

Nikon D3s; ISO: 1,000; f/2.8 @ 1/250th; VR active; available-light.
Full-frame @ 170mm: very slight darkening in corners--both my AF-S Nikkor 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G DX, and AF-S Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G DX zooms exhibit far more vignetting than seen here.

100% crop: very sharp (considering the high ISO), near center.

My buddy has the VRI and I have shot it a little bit. Some of the pictures he was able to shoot in Yellowstone were amazing...also works pretty well with a TC.

I had the same issue 3 months ago, bought the 70-200 vr 1 off ebay (a five year old copy based on the serial number), and I can't believe how good it is on my D7000.

Unless you need the vrII because of an image issue with the vrI, I'd say save the cash, until you really need the newer version.

As an aside, my wife questioned the purchase, until the photos of the kids and their cousins started coming in, now she can't believe how good the photos are. (I'd like to suggest its all me, but in reality, its largely the quality you can get out of this lens, its fair dinkum unbelievable)

The most significant difference between the 70-200mm f/2.8 VRI and VRII is the image magnification at minimum focus. At minimum focus, the VRII version is imaging at an effective focal length of only 135mm. To me, this is significant, and led me to specifically seek out, and purchase the VRI version. Luckily, I found a mint-condition, 70-200mm VRI refurb for only $1,300 USD. Yes, the VRII has slightly less vignetting, and is reportedly sharper in the corners, but my VRI is still sharp as hell, and I really use those extra millimeters at close-focus, especially since I've switched to a full-frame FX body, and no longer benefit from the DX format's 1.5x "tele-extending" crop factor.

Hi SJB,

I was in a similar situation owning the D7000 but the older 70-300 D. So I was considering the 80-200 AFS, the VR I and the VR II for better IQ, isolation and low light performance. All three lenses are still superb and would suite my needs. The availability and the prices I found on the second hand market did a difference to the VR II, but have been still high to justify for a hobby. So what I am supposed to do now? Right, I shelled out the cash and bought myself a brand new shiny VR II, that offers all I was looking for and even more. As a hobbyist this is the kind of lens/investment I buy once in a lifetime, so the difference between VR I and II in relation to all the years I was going to own and use it, was worth it to go with the latest version. These kind of lenses also keep their values on the second hand market for a long time, if one day I'd drop the hobby.

As a side note, I also found reviews that say the VR II is better than its predecessor(s) - especially in the corners - but does no difference for DX. Most of these reviews have been written before the D7000 and I heard some voices that claim the VR II performs better than the VR I on a D7000. However, I can not proof this neither would I claim it.

I suppose you are aware of the fact, that the VR II is a monster. It is big, heavy and bulky, but it does exactly what you are looking for.

You are looking at $2,400 vs $1,500. At that, I would say the VR-I is the easy choice. As others have said, optically they are the same and the VR is slightly improved but the VR-I is so good already it blows the 70-300vr away. Nano Crystal Coat is also on the II but not a deal breaker. I have the VR I, only 2 years old and still in great shape. I won't upgrade it unless I have too or another 5-7 years goes by.

If you have the $$, do the VR II since it is newer, if not, you really can't miss with the VR I.

Welcome sib,

The new 70-200 2.8 VR II was my choice when it came to getting a telephoto for my D7000. You will not regret it, specially if you add the teleconverter 1.7 (hint hint). Moreover, you will be 1/3 of the way there towards the "holly trinity" set. With that said, it is not your lens that is not allowing you to isolate your subject and having a nice blurred background a.k.a."bokeh" it is, as other have pointed out, the manner in which you are taking the shot. It is worth nothing that, without question, the "bokeh" on the 70-200 2.8 VRII is outstanding and as smooth as can be.

Happy shooting and shopping,
Ali

Hi sjb,

I once was kind of in your shoes not so long ago. I was torn between the VRI, VRII and the 70-300mm. After about a month or so of contemplating and fretting over which lens I finally decided to go with the 70-300. I figured that unless I'm going to use the lens to make money on a regular basis then I really can't justify the extra cost. Now I know your circumstances are different and you already own the 70-300 and not happy with it but I just thought I might give you another perspective. As for the out of focus areas, casperweb is right. Aperture is not the only factor. Try getting close to your subject and use a higher focal length while shooting wide open.

Now if you still want to go for 70-200mm then either the VRI or VRII should be great lenses. If you don't care for VR then even the 80-200mm should be plenty good and great value. The VRII is supposed to have sharper corners and vignettes less when wide open. Although if you're shooting with DX and don't plan to upgrade to FX anytime soon then you shouldn't have any problems. The VRII also has other "icings" with nano coating and better VR. One of the criticisms the VRII received though was focus breathing. Which is to say that focusing the lens would also change your effective focal length. So if you're about 10 feet away from the subject with your lens set at 200mm, your image would have an equivalent focal length of, say, 160-170mm and the closer you get the shorter your effective focal length would become. Many photographers don't have a big problem with this though and feel they can work around it.

I should note that all of the info on the VRI and VRII is not from real life experience but from all the research I did when I bought my 70-300mm.

Good luck with you decision.

try shooting the 70-300 wide open at above 250mm

Both lenses are superb SJB, the VR on the version 2 is obviously better, but this may not be a deal breaker for you. Optically most people think there is little to choose between them. If you can find a nice used VR1 for a lot less than the newer model, I would buy it, you won't be dissapointed.

I am new to this forum so please forgive the need for clarification. I am looking for a zoom lens for my D7000 (I've had it for a year). I am considering the 70-200 f2.8 because I would like to have a shallow depth of field vs. the Nikon 70-300mm I own where the background is in focus and it can be distracting.

I know there are several reviews and some of you have voiced the opinion that the 70-200 VR is the same as the newer 70-200 VRII, I just wanted to understand, if you were buying a lens today would you look for a used VR or have there been changes made to the VRII model that makes it more appealing now.

Thanks!

SJB