Some 70-200 VR 1 & VR 2 Comparison shots here

Joined
Jun 11, 2005
Messages
676
Location
Southern Maine
I'm posting 8 shots, 4 from each. These are all wide open, tripod mounted(VR OFF) and shot at 70, 105, 135 and 200. I'll keep my thoughts to myself and am hoping to get some opinions as to the differences in IQ. Please note that there was no PP, just jpeg's. Opinions Please CLICK FOR LARGER SAMPLE

VR 1 @ 70mm
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

VR 2 @ 70mm
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

VR 1 @ 105mm
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

VR 2 @ 105mm
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

VR 1 @ 135mm
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

VR 2 @ 135mm
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

VR 1 @ 200mm
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

VR 2 @ 200mm
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
728
Location
travel
to my eyes, the VRII has a tad better contrast. but I notice there is some shade from the branches messing up my comparison points so I could be simply seeing more favorable light for one model over the other.

I appreciate your attempt but I think it would have been better in a place where the shadows aren't moving around from shot to shot.

thanks anyways.
 
Joined
Jan 25, 2009
Messages
443
Location
Portland, OR
With regards to IQ and this scene, my opinion is.....they look the same. I think there would need to be more detail at the edge of the plane of focus to show the VRI's Achille's heel.

Chad
 
Joined
Apr 29, 2008
Messages
175
Location
NYC
Contrast and Sharpness look better to me on the VRII labeled shots. I prefer the warmer rendering of the VR I shots though. Bokeh looks pretty much the same, VR I may be a bit smoother in these shots. I miss mine already :( But I do love the sharpness of the new lens. How far from the bird bath were you?

Cheers,
Jeff
 
Joined
Jul 3, 2007
Messages
742
Location
california
70 and 105mm look the same to me. Slightly more contrast in VRII at 135?
At 200mm it looks like more contrast in the VRII.

Sharpness wise its hard to tell any difference at this magnification. The VRI is also sharp in the center so I would move the birdbath off to one side and compare.
 
Joined
Apr 5, 2008
Messages
2,847
Location
Middletown, NY
From these images, VRII is sharper. I also notice that VRII is holding more highlite detail in the whites of the bird bath.

You can see the sharpness and better contrast in the gray rocks.

Thanks for the comparison,

Mike
 
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
1,554
Location
Stafford, UK
Did any one doubt that V2 would be better than V1, no doubt Nikon lens develpment engineering/marketing team run all these test and once they where satisfied released V2, So if you find an improvement no surprise there if you still think V1 same or better than your test is falling behind.

Nobody with 70-200 V1, oh people grow up and stop comparing apples with oranges.
 
Joined
Jan 18, 2008
Messages
531
Location
Warrenton, VA
From these images, VRII is sharper. I also notice that VRII is holding more highlite detail in the whites of the bird bath.

You can see the sharpness and better contrast in the gray rocks.

Thanks for the comparison,

Mike
Agree.
(Mike, this reminds me of the 80-200 AFS you owned, which was a killer 135mm lens.)
 
Joined
Jun 11, 2005
Messages
676
Location
Southern Maine
Did any one doubt that V2 would be better than V1, no doubt Nikon lens develpment engineering/marketing team run all these test and once they where satisfied released V2, So if you find an improvement no surprise there if you still think V1 same or better than your test is falling behind.

Nobody with 70-200 V1, oh people grow up and stop comparing apples with oranges.
There's no doubt in the hundreds of shots I took with both, the VR II is a sharper lens(at the corners), with more contrast, and slightly more saturation, but for me it's just not worth an extra $8-900.

It's not about any of us growing up or apples/oranges. I use a D3 and returned my VR II yesterday. The "old POS" is just fine for me.

I was going to keep my opinion out of my own post but that would not be fair.
 
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
1,554
Location
Stafford, UK
There's no doubt in the hundreds of shots I took with both, the VR II is a sharper lens(at the corners), with more contrast, and slightly more saturation, but for me it's just not worth an extra $8-900.

It's not about any of us growing up or apples/oranges. I use a D3 and returned my VR II yesterday. The "old POS" is just fine for me.

I was going to keep my opinion out of my own post but that would not be fair.
Praise voice of reason.
 
Joined
Mar 25, 2005
Messages
12,515
Location
near Montreal, Canada
Maybe I am looking for things that are not there, but the bokeh of V II seems no match for the fine bokeh quality (for a zoom) of the V I.
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2008
Messages
6,374
Location
Alabama
I don't see much difference at all. We will probably need to see a brick wall shot to truly see a difference on full frame. I don't think we will see much a difference in practical shooting.
 
Joined
Mar 27, 2006
Messages
2,522
Location
Kansas, USA. Near the end of the world
Intersting, thanks for sharing.
I shot them today, at the same subject as you did here. I see a very different color from the 2 lenses. The V1 seems to have a slight green tint to it while the V2 looks smack on, right out of the camera.
 

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom