70-200 vr ii

[eNZee]

First id like to appologize if this question has been asked but i couldnt find anything on it.
i dont know if its too early to ask this yet but how does the new 70-200VR II work on full-frame? is it recommended or not? ive read something that the frist 70-200VR doesnt perform well on full-frame body. what are some of the pointers that make this statement true?

thanks

[Digidave]

From what I have read, the main reason for the update was to make it work better on a full-frame camera. People have been asking the question all over the internet, "Should I wait for the new version or buy the old version?". Every answer I have seen has been that if you have a DX(cropped sensor) body camera, go ahead & get the older version. If you plan on upgrading to an FX(full frame) at some time, get the new version. They also upgraded coatings on the lens if I'm not mistaken & the VR(vibration reduction) is an upgrade. Of course, if money is no object, definitely get the upgraded version. Everybody knows, newer is better, right?

[Digidave]

Oh, by the way, the reason the old version doesn't work so well on full-frame was the edges. Apparently, the edges of the photo were blurry or something & if you crop them out it wasn't to big of a deal I guess. I've never owned one myself.

[eNZee]

thanks digidave.
if i were to get the newer version do you think it would still be ok to use on crop?
i have the d90 now and eventually will upgrade to full frame so im trying to line up my lenses from now on based on the future of upgrading to full-frame.
wish i thought of this when i ordered my tokina 11-16 because i read its not so good on full-frame. there are some tricks to it working apperently but whatever....

[Digidave]

Everything I have read indicates you should absolutely go with the newer version. Keep in mind though, that I am just going by what I have read on other forums & the lens isn't actually out yet. That means no "Hands on" reviews. Looks like it's about a $500 difference! If it were me, & I wanted to get real serious about my work, I wouldn't even hesitate to get the newer version.

[kirbinster]

Well from everything I have read, my experience with the current version, and talking to a few pros- there is no reason to waste your money on the new version - unless you have money that you NEED to waste.

The current lens is perfect on a DX camera. True it can be a little soft on the edges on a full frame, but what photographer has the details of their pictures on the edges? Don't you want to draw people's attention towards the subject not have them staring at the edges?

I love my 70-200 f/2.8 AF-S VR and will definitely keep her.

[eNZee]

thanks for your input guys.

im still leaning towards the new version once it comes out.
its just toooo tempting. like chocolate i guess its easier for me to say that because ive never owned the first 70-200 but i can see someone who has it just sticking with it.
if im spending that much money anyways, i might as well wait another couple of months to save up the extra 500 and have the newer version.

[kirbinster]

Please don't take this as a personal attack, as it is not meant that way, but your comment seems very strange coming from someone that has a Sigma 70-300 rather than a Nikon 70-300VR. There is a heck of a lot more difference between those two lenses than you will likely see between the new 70-200 and the current one.

My point was, and still is, that unless you have money you don't know what to do with there is no reason to get the new one for a D90. You say you might upgrade at some point, but it is generally better not to pre-buy as technology changes. By the time you are ready there may be an ever better fuller frame camera out and you might want the 70-200 VR- IV by then (if such a thing is made).

[RexK_Cozumel]

Well kirb it really depends on the time frame. If she is planning on moving to a FX sensor soon then it makes sense to get the newer 70-200.

While I have no hands on experience with it since it is not out yet, the lens tests on the new one crush the older version. I don't know if I am going to replace my 70-200 for the new one yet but I am not going to count it out either. Just waiting on some real life examples first. Also the new lens is smaller than the old one.

I am not saying that the older 70-200 is not a fantastic lens. It is amazing. But there is a little vignetting on a FX body. It is freaking crazy amazing on my D200 but just amazing on my D700.

if that helps any..

[eNZee]

Originally Posted by kirbinster

Please don't take this as a personal attack, as it is not meant that way, but your comment seems very strange coming from someone that has a Sigma 70-300 rather than a Nikon 70-300VR. There is a heck of a lot more difference between those two lenses than you will likely see between the new 70-200 and the current one.

My point was, and still is, that unless you have money you don't know what to do with there is no reason to get the new one for a D90. You say you might upgrade at some point, but it is generally better not to pre-buy as technology changes. By the time you are ready there may be an ever better fuller frame camera out and you might want the 70-200 VR- IV by then (if such a thing is made).

oh none offense taken.
actually i hate my sigma 70-300. its the first lens i got after my dslr camera and wish i didnt buy it. what the hell do you expect for 200 bucks. grrr. in anycase i hardly ever use it. i've learned alot since then now i know where im going with it. eventually im going to sell it for whatever i can get because i really dont like it.
thanks for your input though.