Comments on: Nikon Nikkor 70-200 VR II f/2.8 vs. VR I – design flaws?

By: luka3rd

luka3rd — Wed, 12 May 2010 22:08:02 +0000

What I don’t understand is: why they broke it! They simply did that!
How’s Canon’s new 70-200 perfect? Nikon couldn’t do it?
Now we have to live with the new -bad- one for ten or so years… Well maybe we don’t wont to wait so long, maybe we just buy Canon stuff if we depend on tele zoom…
Wont we?

By: John

John — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 00:17:54 +0000

Emailed Nikon Service and here is what they said. Don’t know if they’re trying to avoid it or what??

Thanks for contacting Nikon Canada about your AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II lens.

In any lens sometimes tiny air holes remain in metal parts during the component production and

may appear as rough surface areas on the metal. These marks appear greatly magnified when viewed through the lens under direct illumination but are in fact tiny and completely normal. These marks in no way affect image quality, lens function, performance or any other aspect of the lens. Further, these areas do not create any dust inside the lens.

By: chani

chani — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 20:20:49 +0000

Being on a budget, I expect to be able to make a good deal on a used 70-200/2.8 VRI from all the silly people feeling the need to upgrade to VRII. :)

By: Eleanor

Eleanor — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 17:05:56 +0000

I mainly use my old 70-200 VR1 for portraits & on a few orations for sports, it is beautifully built, gives me great results and has a good range, I can use it in low light, the three focus lock buttons are a must when using auto focus and the new 70-200 does not have them and also when using close up your quite a bit short of 200mm, more like 160mm, so I will keep with the good old trusty 70-200 VR1.

As they say, “If it ain’t broken don’t fix it” Pleased I did not sell my 70-200 VR2 for the new one with all these problems people keep finding with the new 70-200 VR2.