(Floyd L. Davidson) writes:

Stuffed Crust wrote:
Bruce wrote:
The 70-300mm G VR is OK but it is not a great lens. My advice would
be - if possible - to wait for the AF-S 70-200mm f/4G VR which has
been promised for months and must surely be due soon. The latest
rumour is that it will be announced along with the D600.

Alternatively, consider picking up an older 80-200 f/2.8 lens; they're
far cheaper than the newer 70-200 lenses, and optically far superior to
the 70-300VR.

FWIW I have both the 70-300VR and the 80-200/2.8, and since I got the
latter, I've almost never used the former.

Generally speaking I don't disagree about the 80-200mm
f/2.8 AF-D...

Except in this case the OP explicitly specified the
need for VR and fast AF. I thought it was going a bit
out on a limb to talk about the 80-400mm, but the
80-200mm borders on off topic!

Precisely. I concur with this analysis.

Assuming of course that fast AF and VR actually are
needed.

Yes; he did say it initially, so I think it's proper to consider them a
requirement.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info