Nikon 70-200 F2.8 VR vs VR II: Ultimate Shootout!

Hey friends, gather around! Today, I’m sharing my experiences with two lenses that have been my go-to for years: the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR and its upgraded sibling, the VR II. As a seasoned photographer, I’ve used these lenses for everything from capturing wildlife in the savanna to shooting weddings in dimly lit churches. The Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR vs VR II debate is one I’ve lived through, and I’m excited to break down their differences for you. Whether you’re a pro or a hobbyist, this comparison will help you decide which lens fits your needs.

When I first got the original VR, it was a revelation. Its image stabilization let me shoot handheld in situations where a tripod was impractical, like bustling street markets. Then, the VR II came along, promising better performance. After testing both extensively, I can confirm the VR II brings significant upgrades, but the original VR still holds its own for many photographers.

Nikon 70-200 F2.8 VR vs VR II Comparison

Physical Differences

Let’s start with how these lenses feel in hand. The original VR measures 215mm long and weighs 1470g, making it a solid piece of gear. The VR II is slightly shorter at 209mm but heavier at 1540g. Despite the extra weight, the VR II feels more balanced on my camera, thanks to its redesigned internals.

The VR II’s rubberized focus ring is a nice upgrade. Compared to the original’s metal ring, it offers better grip, especially during long shoots or in cold weather when I’m wearing gloves. It’s a small detail, but it makes a difference in usability.

The lens hood also differs. The VR II’s HB-38 hood is larger and better at reducing flare than the original’s HB-21. This is handy when shooting backlit subjects, like a sunset portrait, where flare control is critical.

Build Quality and Durability

Both lenses are built like tanks, designed for professional use. They feature all-metal construction with rubber seals to protect against dust and moisture. I’ve shot with both in rain and snow, and they’ve never let me down.

The VR II has slightly better weather sealing, especially around the lens mount. This gives me extra confidence in harsh conditions, like a stormy wildlife expedition. The VR II also includes a focus limiter switch, which speeds up autofocus by restricting the focus range—something the original lacks.

The magnesium alloy barrel in the VR II adds to its durability. I’ve accidentally bumped both lenses during shoots, and they’ve held up without a scratch. For photographers working in rugged environments, this robustness is a big plus.

Detailed Specifications

Let’s dive into the technical specs to understand what sets these lenses apart. Below is a detailed comparison table:

Feature	Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR	Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II
Focal Length	70-200mm	70-200mm
Maximum Aperture	f/2.8	f/2.8
Minimum Aperture	f/22	f/22
Lens Construction	20 elements in 14 groups	21 elements in 16 groups
ED Elements	3	7
Minimum Focus Distance	1.4m	1.4m
Maximum Magnification	0.12x at 200mm	0.12x at 200mm
Stabilization	VR (3 stops)	VR II (4 stops)
Autofocus Motor	SWM (Silent Wave Motor)	SWM (Silent Wave Motor)
Diaphragm Blades	9, rounded	9, rounded
Weight	1470g	1540g
Length	215mm	209mm
Diameter	87mm	87mm
Filter Size	77mm	77mm

The VR II’s extra ED elements help reduce chromatic aberration, enhancing sharpness. Its 4-stop stabilization is a step up from the original’s 3 stops, making it better for low-light and video work.

Optical Performance

Both lenses deliver outstanding image quality, but the VR II has a clear edge. The original VR is sharp in the center, but at 200mm and f/2.8, the corners can soften slightly. The VR II, with its remastered optics, stays sharp across the frame, even at 200mm wide open. This is ideal for large prints or tight crops.

I recall shooting a concert with the original VR. The center was tack sharp, but the corners softened when cropping. With the VR II, the entire frame stayed crisp, making it perfect for professional work.

Bokeh is another strength of the VR II. Both lenses produce creamy backgrounds, but the VR II’s bokeh is smoother, with less onion-ring effect. During a wedding shoot in a busy garden, the VR II isolated the couple beautifully, while the original left some background elements slightly defined.

The VR II’s Nano Crystal Coating reduces flare and ghosting better than the original. Shooting into the sun, I noticed the VR II maintained better contrast, which is crucial for backlit scenes.

Autofocus and Stabilization

Autofocus performance is where the VR II shines. The original VR’s autofocus is reliable but can lag with fast-moving subjects. The VR II locks onto subjects quickly, even in low light, thanks to its improved Silent Wave Motor.

I’ve shot soccer games with both lenses. The original VR required careful pre-focusing to keep up with players, but the VR II tracked them effortlessly, capturing more sharp shots. This makes it a game-changer for action photography.

Stabilization is another key difference. The original VR offers 3 stops of vibration reduction, which is solid for handheld shooting. The VR II’s 4 stops allow slower shutter speeds without blur, and its Active mode is great for moving platforms, like shooting from a vehicle.

For video, the VR II’s stabilization produces smoother footage. I’ve filmed wildlife with both, and the VR II’s steadier results reduced the need for a gimbal, especially in low light.

Performance in Different Scenarios

Low-Light Photography and Video

Both lenses perform well in low light, but the VR II’s extra stop of stabilization makes a difference. At a dimly lit concert, I shot at 1/30s with the VR II and got sharp images, while the original VR needed 1/60s to avoid shake. For video, the VR II’s stabilization ensures smoother handheld footage.

Action and Sports Photography

For fast action, the VR II’s quick autofocus is a lifesaver. During a motocross race, it locked onto riders with ease, while the original VR struggled, missing some shots. The VR II’s stabilization also helps when panning at slower shutter speeds.

Portrait Photography

Both lenses excel at portraits, thanks to their f/2.8 aperture. The VR II’s smoother bokeh and sharper edges make it my go-to for headshots or tight crops. It creates a polished, professional look, especially in busy backgrounds.

Wildlife Photography

Wildlife photographers will appreciate the VR II’s fast autofocus and stabilization. I’ve captured sharp images of sprinting cheetahs with the VR II, where the original VR might have lagged. The VR II’s Active mode is also useful when shooting from a moving vehicle.

Event Photography

For weddings and events, the VR II’s low-light performance and quick autofocus make it more versatile. It’s perfect for candid shots in dark churches or lively receptions. The original VR is still capable but less reliable in dim settings.

Landscape and Travel Photography

For landscapes or travel, the original VR is often sufficient. Its image quality is excellent in good lighting, and it’s a great all-around lens for hobbyists. The VR II’s upgrades are less critical for static, well-lit scenes.

Ergonomics and Handling

The VR II’s redesigned focus ring is easier to grip, especially in cold or wet conditions. Its weight distribution feels better on modern Nikon bodies, reducing fatigue during long shoots. The original VR, while comfortable, can feel slightly front-heavy on some cameras.

The zoom ring on both lenses is smooth, but the VR II’s is slightly more refined, with less resistance. This makes it easier to adjust focal length quickly during fast-paced shoots. The VR II’s focus limiter switch also enhances usability in controlled settings.

User Experiences

Talking to other photographers and browsing forums like Reddit has given me valuable insights. Many praise the original VR for its value, especially when bought used. Its corners aren’t “terrible,” and with proper care, it can last over a decade.

The VR II is often called phenomenal, with superior sharpness and build quality. However, some feel the improvement over the original doesn’t always justify the cost, especially for casual shooters. One user noted that the VR II’s focus breathing can be a drawback for video, though it’s less noticeable in stills.

Reliability is a concern for the original VR, as its motors are no longer serviced by Nikon. However, many photographers report long-term use without issues, especially with regular maintenance.

Alternatives and Competitors

While these Nikon lenses are top-tier, alternatives exist. The Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 G2 offers excellent performance at a lower cost, though it may not match Nikon’s build or autofocus speed. Nikon’s 70-200mm f/4 is lighter and more affordable but slower and less durable.

For those seeking even better performance, Nikon’s later 70-200mm f/2.8E FL VR is sharper and lighter but comes at a premium. Third-party lenses like Sigma’s 70-200mm f/2.8 are also worth considering for budget-conscious shooters.

Maintenance and Longevity

Both lenses are built to withstand heavy use, but maintenance is key. I clean the lens elements regularly with a microfiber cloth and store them in a dry bag to prevent moisture damage. The original VR’s motors may need servicing after years of use, but Nikon’s service centers can often refurbish them.

The VR II, being newer, is less likely to need immediate repairs. However, checking used copies for wear is crucial, especially for the original VR. Regular calibration ensures optimal autofocus performance for both.

Compatibility with Accessories

Both lenses accept 77mm filters, making them compatible with polarizers and ND filters. I use slim filters to avoid vignetting at 70mm. They also work with Nikon’s teleconverters, like the TC-14E II, which extends the focal length to 98-280mm at f/4.

The VR II’s tripod collar is more robust, providing better stability when mounted. Both lenses come with a lens hood and pouch, but the VR II’s HB-38 hood is more effective at reducing flare.

Decision-Making: Which Should You Choose?

Choosing between the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR and VR II depends on your needs and budget. If you’re a professional or serious enthusiast shooting in low light or fast action, the VR II’s sharper images, faster autofocus, and better stabilization make it the better choice. Its video performance is also superior, despite minor focus breathing.

If you’re on a budget or already own the original VR, it’s still a fantastic lens. It delivers excellent image quality for most scenarios, especially in good lighting. Unless you face specific challenges like low-light video or fast action, you might not need to upgrade.

Consider your shooting style. Video shooters and action photographers will benefit most from the VR II’s advancements. For casual or well-lit photography, the original VR offers great value and performance.

Conclusion

Both the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR and VR II are exceptional lenses, each with its strengths. The original VR is a reliable, budget-friendly option for general photography, while the VR II’s advanced features make it ideal for professionals tackling low light, fast action, or video. Based on my experiences, the VR II’s upgrades are worth it if you push your gear to the limit. Whichever you choose, you’re getting a top-tier telephoto zoom that will serve you well for years.

FAQ

1. Is the VR II worth the extra cost over the VR?
For professionals needing top performance, yes. The VR II’s sharpness, autofocus, and stabilization are superior. For casual photographers, the original VR may suffice.

2. Can I use these lenses on a crop sensor camera?
Yes, both work on Nikon DX cameras, offering a 105-300mm equivalent focal length.

3. How do they compare to third-party lenses like Sigma or Tamron?
Third-party lenses offer good value but may not match Nikon’s build or autofocus. Nikon’s lenses are renowned for reliability.

4. Are there any known issues with either lens?
The original VR’s motors may fail over time, as Nikon no longer services them. The VR II is newer and more reliable.

5. Which is better for video shooting?
The VR II, with 4-stop stabilization and faster autofocus, is better for video. Its focus breathing is a minor drawback.

6. Does the VR II work with older Nikon bodies?
Yes, it’s compatible with all Nikon F-mount cameras, though older models may not fully support VR features.

7. Is there a difference in color rendition?
Both render colors well, but the VR II’s coatings offer slightly better contrast and clarity.

8. Can I use filters with these lenses?
Yes, both accept 77mm filters. Use slim filters to avoid vignetting.

9. How do they handle chromatic aberration?
Both control chromatic aberration well, but the VR II’s seven ED elements give it an edge.

10. Are these lenses future-proof?
Both remain relevant for F-mount cameras, but the VR II’s newer design aligns better with high-resolution sensors.