D800E and 70-200: how much better is VRII over VRI?

Started Nov 11, 2012 | Questions thread
anotherMike Veteran Member • Posts: 8,778
Re: Why O why?

I use the 70-200/2.8G VR2 a LOT for landscapes. Here's the reason:

- it's good enough to replace a bunch of primes in the range. It's better at landscape than any 105 or 135mm option Nikon makes right now, even at landscape distances, and I feel it's better than any 180 they make or have made. At landscape distances, it's very close to the 85/1.8G, which is saying something, because the 85/1.8G is *sick* sharp at landscape distances. Of all my lenses, only my 200/2 is better at landscape.

- and thus, since landscape often means air travel, one has to be selective and efficient about what they pack. My basic landscape kit right now is the 14-24 (for 15 and 20mm focal lengths), the 24/1.4G (which has no peer at 24mm), the 35/1.4G and 24-70/2.8G (because I shoot a lot in that rough 30-40mm range and these two are really good here), and the 70-200 to cover the other primes. I often squeeze the 85/1.8G in there. On occasion I'll get out the big bag and carry the 200/2 as well, but often, unless I really truly believe I'll be living at 200mm a LOT, I"ll just take the VR2 instead - while I do believe it's optimized for close, even at distance I found it to be closer to my 200/2 than my VR1 ever was in the corners - not the same by any means as the 200, but good enough to get by if I don't expect to live at 200 a lot, so this lens solves a lot of "how many lenses can I fit into the backpack" problems.

Now, should Nikon introduce a killer 105/2 replacement and a new 180, that might change. I also am strongly going to look at the Zeiss 135/2 apo-sonnar when it comes out, and that might change my travel kits composition. But today, the 70-200 is a must have for my landscape kit.


Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow