Is the 70-200VR2 Worth Upgrading To?
This question comes up a whole lot of late and wanted to once and for all get my answer out there in big, bold type. YES! I personally find the new version to be a tad sharper and have a little sharper contrast which leads to better color than the original 70-200VR. Does this mean you should go out and buy it, must you replace your older 70-200VR?
The question should really be, does the lens and its focal length 70-200 fit your style and solve photographic problems you face for your style of photography? This photograph of a Great Egret I took the other day when hanging with our bud RC and his camera club in Tampa (it’s when this image was made by RC). We were at Wall Springs and the egret was just below us and a easy click. Shot at f/2.8, just the top of the head down to the eye and tip of the bill is sharp and that’s just how I wanted it. But I didn’t buy the lens for wildlife.
Shot from the Brooklyn Bridge looking over at DUMBO, the crispness and color of this high rise really snaps with the 70-200VR2, but that’s not why I bought it either.
These seasonal decorations in a 5th Avenue window just couldn’t be passed up. I have no clue what I’ll ever do with this image but I really love the pattern, color and light. The 70-200VR2 did a great job with this subject too, but that’s not why I bought it. Why I bought the lens I can’t illustrate right now because I’ve not used it for that purpose and that’s air-to-air flight photography (that’s photographing a plane from another plane). But it’s all these attributes of the new lens that made me want it and want it for this one type of photography.
I’ve not owned a 70-200 for a lot of years, relied mostly on other focal lengths within the range for my photography including the 200f2VR. While not f/2, I do feel the 70-200VR2 delivers delicious performance easily making it the go to lens especially when I can only take one lens.
Photos captured by D3s, 70-200VR2 on Lexar UDMA digital film