Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 I have the VRI, whats the difference between this and the new upcoming VRII? I wonder if its worth upgrading to the new one.
194931
The biggest difference with this lens isn't the VR II, but that you shouldn't get the vigetting with the FX sensor like you do with the current 70-200 f/2.8G VRI. The improvement of the VRII isn't the selling factor for this lens, its the rummor that it is more compatable with the FX. Now, whether they have fixed the vigetting on this lens is not certain, no one i know has had the chance to test it. If you have a 700, D3, or D3x, wait and see if they have fixed the problem. If you personally don't have a problem with your current lens, don't waist the money.
194932
First review I've found for the new modelhttp://cliffmautner.typepad.com/my_weblog/2009/10/101309-the-new-nikon-70200mm-f28g-ed-vrii.html
194933
Bill, there are a few variables... Do you plan to go to a FX sensor in the future (D700, D3)? Do you plan on hand-holding or will you be using a mono/tripod? Are you someone that must have the latest and greatest things? Personally I'm going for the VR II, I shoot a D90 now but want to have room to move to a FX camera without worrying about vignetting and edge sharpness. Plus after looking at some of the review pictures that people have posted, especially the side by side shots, I think the VR II is worth the extra $500
194934
Ummm no, "active" is if you're using VR while in a moving vehicle. "Normal" is for normal hand held shooting.http://www.nikon.com/about/technology/core/software/vr_e/index.htm"In Normal mode, slow and wide camera movement is regarded as recomposing movement and VR operation is controlled accordingly. In Active mode, however, even large amounts of camera movement are compensated for to give a smooth viewfinder image. This mode is quite useful when shooting from a moving vehicle or some other unstable position."
194935
Not absolutely sure, but on this lens there are two VR setting, besides "off"! One called "normal" which is for normal hand held use... the other is called "active" which is supposed to work well for taking shots from a moving vehicle. Initially I thought it was for sports photography... duh!
194936
I am an amateur photographer and do not plan on going to an FX sensor. I plan on shooting from both a monopod and free hand. I do enjoy having the best but only when it makes sense. I have not had much luck shooting my son's hockey games with my current lense and need the 2.8 to get the low light, high speed shots. A friend has the VI and she is able to get some great shots. That was the lens I was orignally looking at until this one came out. Can you point me to a site that has the comparison shots. In light of ths information, what would you go with. Thanks again for your response.
1037163
I have to respectfully disagree with the recommendation for a 16-85mm VR. I have that lens, use it with my D90 and it's great for outdoor situations. Indoors, the 16-85mm is fine if you are using a flash. I can see using the 16-85mm for some interior church shots, but most of wedding shots are going to be of people. things, little details like bouquets, etc. You will want a lens that can handle low-light and can isolate a subject well (subject in focus - remaining areas blurry). You should check out primes. Fast zooms are nice, but they will defintiley set you back a lot of money. Look into these lenses: 1. Nikkor 50mm 1.8 - The poor man's lens for low light, decent bokeh, depth of field interestingness. $100 Everyone should have at least one fast lens and since this one is cheap, it's a good place to start. 2. Sigma 30mm 1.4 More money, but since it's wider than the above lens, a little more versatile, especially with DX sensor. $300 or more 3. Nikkor 85mm 1.8 - Like the 50mm but is more telephoto, so this is good if you are standing far from your subject but want to fill the frame with your subject. Good for concerts, theater, etc. 5. Nikkor 85mm 1.4 - This is a money-making lens for pro wedding photographers and portrait photographers. People fall in love with and worship this lens. Do a web search and you'll find out why. Very, very pricey. $1K but worth it. One thing about primes is that there is a definite learning curve to using them - especially at the wider apertures since the depth of field is SO narrow. You have to really work on learning to use them to maximize the number of keepers you have. BUT, these fast lenses help you to examine more work more critically, to look at your composition, technique, etc in ways that your kit lens never will :) Good luck with your photography!
369538
One new lens to consider - the new 55-200 VR lens, as an addition to the kit 18-55 lens. The Vibration Reduction is an incredible asset. The lens is quite inexpensive as well.
1790368
I have the non-VR version of both, and I personally prefer the 70-300. I got the gray market version of the 70-300 for $110...that's a deal right there. You can get that AND the 55-200mm VR and come out paying the same as you would for just the 70-300mm VR. Also, the focal range covered (55-200mm = 82.5-300mm) and (70-300=105-450mm) is much greater with the 70-300 on a DX. VR is important, yes, but with my D90 and its battery grip, I don't have much trouble getting sharp shots at 300mm and 200mm at 1/60 with either of them, respectively. The size difference is considerable in your bag as well. The 70-300 is rather large. I have the non-VR version of both, and I personally prefer the 70-300. I got the gray market version of the 70-300 for $110...that's a deal right there. You can get that AND the 55-200mm VR and come out paying the same as you would for just the 70-300mm VR. Also, the focal range covered (55-200mm = 82.5-300mm) and (70-300=105-450mm) is much greater with the 70-300 on a DX. VR is important, yes, but with my D90 and its battery grip, I don't have much trouble getting sharp shots at 300mm and 200mm at 1/60 with either of them, respectively. The size difference is considerable... » Read More I have the non-VR version of both, and I personally prefer the 70-300. I got the gray market version of the 70-300 for $110...that's a deal right there. You can get that AND the 55-200mm VR and come out paying the same as you would for just the 70-300mm VR. Also, the focal range covered (55-200mm = 82.5-300mm) and (70-300=105-450mm) is much greater with the 70-300 on a DX. VR is important, yes, but with my D90 and its battery grip, I don't have much trouble getting sharp shots at 300mm and 200mm at 1/60 with either of them, respectively. The size difference is considerable in your bag as well. The 70-300 is rather large. « Show Less
1558942
Sachin is correct. There is only one version of this lens, and that version already had VRII. I got this lens in 2008 (my review is from August 19, 2008), so it has been out quite a while. There is no other version of the 16-85mm, just this one that goes from 3.5 to 5.6.
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
2183425
There are two different lenses. The older one is the f/3.5-5.6G ED VR. Ken Rockwell reviews both on his web site. I have the older one which is not all that old actually--a couple years. It is an all purpose lens and I keep it on my camera much of the time. Check out the Rockwell reviews for a comprehensive and more technical discussion of each one.
1736483
It's worth every penny, especially if you take portrait shots. I do not have the 18-200, but I have the 16-85 VRII. While the 16-85 is a great lens for outdoor shots, landscape and group photos, the quality of portrait I get from the 85 1.8 (or any prime lens for that matter) is way above any all around zoom. Most pictures I take with this lens are worth keeping.
668628
Following my initial post I found a comment from Kodak explaining the differences vs the Zi8. It seems that aside from touchscreen (if you really want it), the only real differences are a wider-angle lens and supposedly better low-light performance. I think I'll wait for a few reviews from people who actually buy it before investing on this update.PS: Like the Zi8 it also takes an external mic
1118342
David, you should keep an eye on nikonrumors [dot] comThey monitor all of the word on the street. Current consensus is that there is not going to be a refresh for the D700 this year.I have owned one for a year and a half, and am absolutely thrilled with it. I will keep it for a very long time. The overall sensor performance (low-light, etc.) is still one of the best in the world. see dxomark [dot] com
1649318
Has anyone seen any actual reviews of this camera as opposed to marketing spec lists? Sometimes I've seen pre-production models of cameras that get reviewed prior to actual release. It is the low light ability claims of the Nikon that I'll need to see put to the test. That's probably the biggest Achilles heel of all these superzooms. It may have a CMOS sensor (which explains the burst speed of this camera) but it is still the same small size sensor as all the superzooms so I'm dubious about any huge improvement in low light. All of the previous versions of this new crop of superzooms (Nikon, Sony, Fuji) only got a flat four star rating in Amazon while the Panasonic FZ35 and FZ40 both are at 4.6. This new group has longer zooms than the Pansonics but I need to know if the picture quality is improved in any way.
1418843
You did the right thing with the D40. See the Lew Rockwell site.I have had mine for several months, and the more I learn about it,the better I like it.I recommend you buy the 55-200 VR lens to go with it.Unbelievable.
678610
I had the f4 version, and sold it to a friend to buy the F2.8II. Frankly, the increase in IQ is there but very slight. I would have no qualms about going back to the F4 version, it's a stunning lens. So unless you have a specific need for F2.8 (weddings for example as others mention), the added weight of the 2.8 to me is hard to justify. These are both exceptional lenses, the difference is like comparing a Bentley and a Rolls-Royce.
990747
depends on your usage, i'd say the 35mm f1.8g because its a better all rounder and is a lot sharper than the 55-200 ( i have both of these ) the 35mm is great for indoors i chose the 35mm 1.8 over the 50mm 1.8 because its wider. The build quality is not that great on the 55-200 and the vr motor gives a noise also the focusing speed is slow on the 55-200mm
2180990
I just sold my older tamron 70-200 and got this newer version. If you do sport, I say yes it is worth it. The faster focusing motor helps for tracking and the VC here is unbelievable. If you shoot portrait, other still photography in good light then the IQ isn't much difference. This is my action sport lens, the newer version taht I couldn't afford with the nikon VR2 model. I could of gotten a used older vr1 version.
845608
I just saw that the new model (pzd) is just 20 dollars more and its lighter. The old version is a great all around lens. I highly recommend it. Recently i bought the 17-50 2.8 VC which way sharper and brighter, but the zoom range of this one is amazing. Good luck
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.