Home     View Portfolio     Blog     Contact    

Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G VR-II review

The original Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR lens (Amazon) has been around for quite a while, and has been a workhorse lens for many of us. It has a number of characteristics, however, that aren’t ideal for folks shooting full-frame FX cameras like the D3 or D3x; namely corner softness, light falloff or vignetting, an older VR system, and susceptibility to flare when shooting a backlit subject. So when the new 70-200mm f/2.8 VR-II (Amazon, B&H Photo) lens was released, I ordered one, with the hope of replacing my original lens.

I’m going to write this review from my own perspective as a fashion and beauty photographer. I typically use this lens between 105 and 200mm, for anywhere from half-body shots to tight beauty shots. Things like corner softness and light falloff aren’t as important for me as better VR, and wide-open performance at short distances. Landscape shooters will have a whole different set of requirements for a lens, and for the most part, I won’t be addressing some of these things.

All testing was done with a Nikon D3x, using NEF files. Except as noted, all shots taken with a tripod, mirror lockup, and remote trigger. No output sharpening was used on any of the photos we’re looking at here.

The elephant in the room

As I mentioned, I shoot from close distances at the long end of the range with the original 70-200, looking for tight framing for beauty and head shots. One of the characteristics of the new lens is the “breathing” of the effective focal length as you zoom in. At minimum focus distance (about 4.5 feet), the effective field of view is approximately 135mm, rather than about 190mm of the older lens. To illustrate this, here is a comparison of the new and old lenses, both at an indicated 200mm, both at roughly their minimum focus distance:


(click for larger version)

This is a significant difference in framing. The reason for this has to do with the internal focus lens design; the old lens was also an IF design, but obviously dramatically different.

Sharpness at minimum focus distance

Let’s take a look at the overall lens performance at its highest magnification, such as one might use for a head shot. In this case, I’ve tried to match the field of view between the new and old lenses; the new lens was set at an indicated 200mm, and the old lens was set to 135mm. As you can see, I didn’t get the field of view matched exactly, but it’s close enough to evaluate the difference.

For reference, this is the overall frame we are looking at:


The focus point was on the model’s right eye, showing the following detail:


(click for larger version)

Be careful when looking at the full size versions that your browser isn’t scaling the images; click on them to zoom into 100% if you need to.

We can see that the new lens is critically sharp even at f/2.8 at indicated 200mm at closest focus distance; this is quite an impressive performance. The older lens (at 135mm) appears to be a touch soft at f/2.8, better at f/4, and critically sharp by f/5.6. It’s worth noting that we are at extreme magnifications from a 24MP image here, with no output sharpening – for most applications, the old lens even at f/2.8 will deliver acceptable sharpness.

Just for fun, let’s look at some images at maximum magnification with the old 70-200 at 200mm; reference image:


And the close-up detail:


(click for larger version)

Here we see the problem I was hoping the new lens would solve; at 200mm at MFD, the old lens is a bit soft at f/2.8, improved by f/4, and great by f/5.6. Note we are focused fairly near the center of the frame; it gets softer if you move the focus point further out. Unfortunately, the new lens cannot achieve this magnification, so this particular shot cannot be duplicated.


There is another impact of the reduced effective focal length, and that is the perspective changes between the lenses. For purposes of this write-up, I’ll just focus on the background behind the subject.

The new lens at 200mm at MFD achieves the same framing as the old lens at roughly 135mm at about the same distance. But another option with the old lens is to keep the same framing of the subject, but back up a few feet and use 200mm instead. The impact of this, aside from some small perspective changes on the subject herself, is to change the appearance of the background…and to effect what is known as the bokeh, or the appearance of the out-of-focus areas of the image.

I demonstrate this here. The subject is the focus point, but quite underexposed in order to more readily draw attention to the background. The left column is the new lens at max magnification at 200mm, and the right column is the old lens, at 200mm, from further away to achieve roughly the same framing.


(click for larger version)

[note, these shots taken handheld]

If you look at the last row (at f/16), you can see what the background actually looks like, and the difference between the two perspectives; then peruse the f/2.8 and f/4 versions to see the difference in “bokeh”.

Wider focal lengths

I don’t usually shoot the 70-200 at the wide end for my work, but I thought I’d run through a quick test anyway to see how the two lenses compared to each other, and also to the fabulous Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 (Amazon). Overall scene:


And the close-up detail:


(click for larger version)

All of the lenses performed well here, although interestingly the old 70-200 seems a touch sharper than the new one.

Vignetting / Light falloff

The old 70-200 had fairly significant light falloff into the corners when used on full-frame Nikon bodies. The newer lens reduces (although doesn’t quite eliminate) this effect. Focus your attention on the top corners in these photos; the bottom corners are a bit harder to interpret due to the lighting and framing:


(click for larger version)

Interestingly, the new 70-200 seems to be even better than the 24-70 at 70mm in this regard, which is something I would not have expected.

Vibration reduction

I don’t have actual photos to post here; however, in practice I found the new VR system to be very effective; dramatically more so than the original VR lens. For example, I’ve got several shots at an indicated 200mm at 1/13 sec which are truly tack sharp, something I’ve rarely if ever achieved with the older lens. There are plenty of other articles on the net with examples of this.


The contrast of the new lens when shooting backlit subjects is dramatically better than the older lens. Example:


(click for larger version)

This is a bit of a worst-case example, with the background many stops brighter than the subject, but should at least give you an idea of how the new lens deals with backlighting as compared with the original lens.


Nikon’s new 70-200mm lens has a lot going for it. Incredibly sharp optics, dramatically better VR, much reduced light falloff, and excellent contrast even in severe lighting conditions. It’s unquestionably the best zoom lens in this range I’ve ever used. Everything about the new lens appears to be significantly better than the old lens…but…

The field of view at close focus distances, for my work, is a problem. The original 70-200 is my go-to lens for beauty and head shots, and the new lens can’t reproduce the same framing that I can get (and regularly use) with the original. In these cases, I can’t step any closer to the subject (because I’m already near the minimum focus distance), so the only option would be to crop into the files. There are plenty of pixels to do this with the D3x, for headshots and the like when 8×10 or 11×14 is likely to be the largest print required; however, for commercial and other work, I don’t want to be forced to crop into the files.

There’s always a tradeoff…

[EDIT Dec 12 2009: I re-shot the 200mm MFD images on the original lens, which are now better than before at f/2.8 through f/5.6; not sure what happened originally, but I think I must have had a bit of vibration when I was shooting. In any case, the text and associated images are now updated.]

If you found this review useful, use our links here to purchase this new lens, or any other gear you need, at Amazon or B&H Photo!

11 Responses to “Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G VR-II review”

  1. Will Says:

    Great review Greg, it answers a lot of questions. I think I’m sticking with VR1

  2. Michael de Gunst Says:

    Thanks, great review, minimum distance has always been my biggest problem by weddings, children and smal animals, So I stick to VR-I too.

  3. Tim Hind Says:

    Greg, great review, very helpfull. I need to think again about getting one. Like the higher contrast in backlit situations though!

  4. Tim Hind Says:

    I tried out the VRII at my local store after reading your review. With my style the shortened reach isn’t a problem after all, so I bought one!! Stunning lens, I recommend potential buyers check it out in relation to their style, as it may not be a problem.

    The sharpness and VR are excellent, with virtually no vignetting (unless I shoot a blank wall!)

  5. Duncan Kim Says:

    Hi Greg. Thanks very much for the review which I found better than any other reviews other there. I was wondering whether I should switch my lens but I think I am going to stick with old 70-200mm for now. Interestingly, I found images taken with my 70-200mm at 70mm better than thouse of 24-70mm at 70mm. Accordingly to Nikon’s MTF, this shouldn’t be the case and I was pulling my hairs try to figure out what went wrong with my 24-70mm. I am glad it looks like it is not my lens after all.

  6. Michael de Gunst update Says:

    Expressing my sympathy and heartfelt concern to the very individuals and families suffering from the (Sendai earthquake) disaster and sincerely hope and wishing for safety and health for them soon!
    Update: In the meantime I tested the AF 80-200mm 1:2.8 first and second edition and the 70-200mm VR1 against the VR2 and hereby like to share my thoughts with you. My stunning conclusion is that the AF 80-200 are so flat in colours! Sell when you can! You know it is slow focussing and tack sharp but the results (flat colours) count at the end of the day.
    Why buying a VR2 when owning a VR1? Strangely the suspended production at the Sendai factory, produces high-end and pro level Nikon SLR gear, made me decide to buy when I could. A fortnight ago I bought about the last VR2 “new in box” in the Netherland. Waiting for VR3 might have been to long for me so the last VR2 new in box was just a must buy.
    My conclusions (and hardly read on sites on the internet) at the long end (200mm) the VR2 has the same focal length as the VR1. Despite my first opinion the VR2 is a must have tool because off hardly visible fall-off and sharpness loss in the corners and nice color rendering all over.

  7. gnohz Says:

    Just wanted to say, thanks for the detailed writeup and review of the new lens. It will definitely help in decision making :)

  8. Arif Says:

    Great review Greg! Sold the old several months ago, not because I’m not satisfied, but the AF-S motor started to show sign of age. Bought the new one a few weeks ago. Couldn’t be happier! The breathing is never a problem to me, since I never require precise framing at minimum distance. I can always move closer or farther if I need it.

  9. Mark Says:

    Excellent review!
    the VRII is some exceptional lens, no doubts but the frame at the MFD is unacceptable. Nobody wants a 160mm zoom when expecting a 200mm zoom.
    There is one more thing Ive noticed (pretty much right away): with the VRI I had to compensate all the time to even -1 EV. The VRII doesn’t need any compensation. in other words the VRI if left at the standard metering used to over-expose by default.
    In fact if you adjust the test shots of the VRI the difference (also in sharpness) will be reduced.

    Got the VRII for a month now and I still can’t decide. Head shots are easier with the VRI (but must be set at -1EV)
    I may go back to the VRI …

  10. Mark Says:

    reducing the MFD with a close-up filter:

    one more thing: on a DX camera I used to shoot the 70-200 VRI with the great Nikon close-up filter no.0 (NL 0.7) , and a 77 to 52 step down. It gives a brand new use of the lens with a much reduced MFD and pretty much the same quality . The Nikon no.0 lens is a single element but very good. The B+W +1 (also single element) gives a working distance too short and adds strange colors to the shot.

    the Nikon no.0 can’t be used on a full frame camera (obviously) and NL 0.5 or 0.7 filters are impossible to find at 77mm

  11. Doug Says:

    Nice review, but for the majority of Nikon shooters, the focus breathing issue with the VR-II is way over blown. The many advantages of the VR-II vs the VR-I greatly outweigh the miniscule percentage of photographers who might have a problem with 200mm MFD.