200VR II: Most boring lens announcement of the year?

Not the most boring any more. Nikon announced their 50mm F1.8 G lens.

sting said:

Honestly, I don't know if the nano coatings are better than the "special whatever" coatings that were shipped with the 200mm f/2 VR I. Has anyone ever seen a comparison or even a side-by-side picture of the O and II?

Click to expand...

Yes. Bjorn Rorslett posted comparison images and the contrast on the II is significantly higher and detail wide open better resolved (with higher contrast, I mean). The differences stopped down were progressively smaller.

sting said:

I can understand how VR changes gradually over time such that VR II on, say, the 70-200mm VR II is much better than on the VR I but not much different than the VR on the 105mm VR.

Click to expand...

The VR on the 105mm Micro has always been "VR II".

sting said:

Could that be the case with the Nano coatings?

Click to expand...

Could what be the case?

sting said:

Nikon shouldn't leave me wondering. I purchased the 200mm f/2 VR I shortly before the 300mm f/2.8 VR. Given that there has been no update of the 5+ year-old 300mm, I suspect that the original 200mm f/2 VR was released with the latest coatings, but the Nano name was coined afterwards.

Click to expand...

Well, the images posted on nikongear.com (now you need to subscribe to access) clearly demonstrate improvement in contrast at f/2 in the new version. You're trying to convince yourself and others that your substantially cheaper "I" version of the 200/2 VR is just as good? Who are you kidding.

sting said:

The 200mm doesn't flare like the 105mm f/2

Click to expand...

It is easy enough to get the 200/2 VR (I) to flare, when shooting towards the light but I would not call it a problem. However the difference in contrast between f/2 and f/4 is quite large and if you don't like the low contrast image at f/2 then you can get the new version. Or not, if you don't care. I like my original version apart from the tripod collar which is too flexible (for landscape shooting). The II version has a thicker foot, according to Bjorn Rorslett. And then there is the improved VR. I think the prices roughly reflect the improvements and the currency changes. However, think of it more like this: for those who didn't buy v. 1, Nikon offers an improved lens at a higher cost, because they can. There is no one who is forcing v. I owners to upgrade, the lens is as good as when you bought it.

fastglass said:

You might be more accurate justifying Nikons sometimes exorbitant price increases - as necessary & profitable - to follow mkt maker Canon (or risk their ire) plus the obligitary Nikon premiun, rather than some BS "strong yen" justification - for if that were truly the case, why other Japanese mfg goods passing along the same very high percentage bumps?

Click to expand...

There may also have been increases in the cost of the raw materials (special glass etc.)

Traditionally the Japanese camera manufacturers have virtually dumped their products to the US market at -30% compared to the same products selling in Europe (and it's not just VAT; far from it). Someone finally realized at Nikon that this is not fair and now the prices are much closer to each other. Of course the combination of low value of the USD and this normalization of prices across continents together mean that the USD prices are much higher than the (probably) net loss prices they used to give the US retailers. You just have to get used to the prices that everyone else has always had to pay.

Of course, when the American economy revives, the salaries will go up and the lenses even at their new prices will seem more affordable.

Nikon does not need to justify the price increases - they are free to charge whatever they like. And consumers are free to buy, or not buy.

Ilkka Nissilä said:

Well, the images posted on nikongear.com (now you need to subscribe to access) clearly demonstrate improvement in contrast at f/2 in the new version. You're trying to convince yourself and others that your substantially cheaper "I" version of the 200/2 VR is just as good? Who are you kidding.

Click to expand...

No. It's just that Nikon released a premium lens, the 200m f/2 VR, at roughly the same time as the 300mm f/2.8 VR, to compete with Canon offerings. If you were Nikon, would you hold back on coatings?

Ilkka Nissilä said:

Ilkka Nissilä said:

The 200mm doesn't flare like the 105mm f/2

Click to expand...

It is easy enough to get the 200/2 VR (I) to flare, when shooting towards the light but I would not call it a problem. However the difference in contrast between f/2 and f/4 is quite large and if you don't like the low contrast image at f/2 then you can get the new version.

Click to expand...

True. Without access to both, it's hard to make this decision. Since I bought the 200mm f/2 to shoot wide or nearly wide open, I do find the flare problematic. So, I'm relying on comparisons, which are rare for the same reason. I'm not trying to convince myself that the VR1 is the same. It's just that there is so little information that would help me in evaluating an upgrade. I would think that Nikon would put out this information. Instead, it simply does not exist.

Word of mouth is all we have. We have the same people that convinced use that the 85mm f/1.4D is a very sharp lens, and now with measurements from photozone et al, I have an explanation as to why my face portraits on FX with a corner focus sensor on an eye are not that good.

Ilkka Nissilä said:

The II version has a thicker foot, according to Bjorn Rorslett.

Click to expand...

I bought the Really Right Stuff foot.