The newer version promises improved VR (vibration reduction) performance, sharper images with more contrast and better color as well as the elimination (or vast reduction) of vignettes caused by the previous addition on FX (full frame) sensors.
Though I've only had my copy for a few days, I've done some very brief testing and have reported my findings here. I hope to a update this post when I have had more time with this optic in the field.
For starters, the lens is about the same size and weight as the first generation. The new rendition is wider on the back end and carries this trait uniformly throughout it's length. The previous version was wide near the front element and tapered at the manual focusing ring to provide a narrower profile for the bulk of the body.
Click on any images to see them larger
The above image shows the previous edition (left) and the newer version (right). The newer lens is slightly shorter than the first generation and wider throughout. Overall, they feel about the same in terms of weight, but the newer version may be slightly better balanced in my opinion. I actually like the tapered ergonomics of the original lens, but it's not a deal-breaker for the new one.
The lens hood for the new model (show to the right) is significantly shorter and lighter than that which adorned the pervious lens (left). This results in a slightly less intrusive presentation and can make a notable difference when packing the lenses. The image below shows both versions of the lens with the hood mounted in the inverted position.
Because the lens is slightly narrower as a package when the hood is mounted, the newer version does make for slightly better packing. The overall length being shorter also helps in this arena. Though this can be negligible depending on your bag and how you pack your gear, it is noticeable in my Kata MC-61 where I pack the lens sideways.
Another place to note a difference in the lens hood is in the curvature of the long "petal" elements of the hoods. As seen below, the first version is flatter in nature than the newer one. The original version is also thicker and more sturdy overall. This has no impact on the hood's ability to reduce light falling in the lens, but will surprise some photographers who are prone to standing the lens on it's hood. Standing the lens up vertically, especially with a camera mounted, is not exactly good practice, but we sometimes do it. Especially if we are in an environment where lenses need to be changed quite a bit - like in the studio. One may line up the non-mounted lenses for quick access when changing optics. With round metal hoods like those on, say, the 85mm f/1.4 lens, this isn't a big deal (I keep mine on it while is packed), but for less stable flower petal style hoods this can be risky; especially in windy environments or where there is heavy traffic. This new hood really prevents you from being able to do that because the curvature of the longer petals is just significant enough to topple the lens if you try to rest it on it's hood. A word to the wise - don't do it.
One of the things I heard some of the pros discuss - when they got their hands on early releases of the lens - was an improvement in contrast, color and clarity (sharpness). They also claimed that the VR was noticeably better. I have not had enough time with the lens to comment on it's AF performance or low light VR abilities yet, but in my quick test shots, the lens does appear to deliver on the three "C"s as well as in the vignette department.
With the first generation, there was some distortion at the edges of the frame and some vignetting (dark halos at the image edge) on images taken with an FX sensor, particularly at wider apertures. Adjusting the camera's vignette correction control did help with this, but didn't completely eliminate it.
The newer version, just in my quick test fire images, did very well in edge distortion and vignetting. I don't shoot in a lab and analyze everything under a microscope like some reviewers. This is simply my feedback on real-world use. As a sports, wedding and portrait photographer I need fast, reliable glass that delivers the best image quality possible, and to me the new VR II makes strides in this area.
Below are two images shot using the pervious generation (left) and the updated version (right). My framing is slightly off, but the comparison should still show some notable results. The image of Jama (student assistant) on the right has more contrast and no vignetting. The image on the left shows slight vignetting at the far corners. Both images were shot at 200mm at ISO 400 at f/4 and 1/500th. Both images were shot handheld from a stable position with VR ON and in NORMAL mode. It was on an overcast day and there was no change in light as the images were shot just seconds apart. Even though framing is slightly off, the camera was set to center weighted metering and the images can be considered virtually identical.
The images below show a crop of the above images. The crops are exactly the same size and from the same location in the photographs. These crops were made to reveal sharpness and the slightly closer crop with the older lens (left) should give that version a very slight advantage over the image to the right, but the results show that the new VR II lens does seem to produce sharper images right out of the camera. I took a series of images at various focal lengths and settings and tried to pick the two that were most similar in every way to be fair.
The image on the right is noticeable sharper than the image to the left. This was consistent with various images taken at the same time.
Is this exhaustive proof that the newer VR II is hands down the better optic by far? No. But from my brief experience it does seem to be an improvement and produces images that are equal to the previous version at worst and significantly better at best. Is it worth $500 more than the original version? That remains to be seen from a full blown handling and results perspective, but from the preliminary results, on an FX sensor, I'd have to say, for me, yes. I shoot sports, weddings, portraits, album artwork and more, and if there is a lens available that arguably produces better contrast and more sharpness and may work better in low light, then it's worth the extra coin. I want the best images I can get right out of the camera and, so far, the VR II is proving itself.
I will likely not do a follow-up side by side comparison, rather simply remark on the handling and overall performance differences after I have a few thousand images under my belt. I'll be using it to do some portraits, action shots and a wedding in the next several weeks and hope to get another article up toward the beginning of the year.
As a side note, if you use the Really Right Stuff system, their website indicates that the replacement foot they designed for the original lens will also work with the VR II. It does slide on and lock down easily, but the new lens has a slight taper on the slide plate and this results in a slightly downward angling of the lens. This is not decremental, simply adjust the head backward, but it should be noted just in case.
As always, I'm simply one voice in a million. I don't have a degree in physics and am not an imaging expert. I am, however, a professional who takes his artwork seriously and my reviews are my opinions based on products I have personally used and/or own. I am not compensated in any way for my opinions. I place them here for the benefit of others and to offer a perspective that can be added to the comments and tests of others to provide potential buyers with a broader scope with which to arm themselves when considering new or used equipment.
Until next time, happy shooting.
- R
