Welcome to the forum, expat. Reading that sentence about change and smaller bills I was thinking, "He's actually saving up for the D4s and doesn't know it." Then I read the rest of the sentence and it all made sense. ;-)

1st Post

I would certainly consider changing to the newer model, provided money fell from the sky.
The price difference between the value of my beloved 70-200vr and the series 2 is just too much right now.
But for purely performance reasons I would rather have the VR verII. It is sharper believe it or not, and has a different look to its images that I am not sure how to describe but it is noticeable just looking in the VF. Until I actually used one I did not believe there would be much difference other than the updated VR and the wider image circle. But there was. The much complained about shortening of FL when focusing close is actually a benefit for my subjects.

All that said, the 70-200VR ver 1 is still my go-to walking around lens that stays on my D90 most of the time. My bag is full of good glass but that one is my steady companion, predictable, fast focusing, sharp, with stunning out of focus area. I have stopped buying lenses however because I created a glass-jar with a label "D3s Fund" where I deposit my change and smaller bills every time I empty my pockets, plus a set addition of $500 a month. Early summer I'll have enough, unless a high ISO version of the D90 or D700 comes out first. I can't really think of a lens I need, unless it is the 14-24 2.8 to go with the D3s. I will still shoot the D90 because it is light and fits in my backpack with the 70-200 on it. The D3s would be for event and club work where the ISO would be challenged, and for wide architecture. With the grip, good glass, SB900 slave, the D90 is a very effective and nice handling rig. The D3s would probably be much to handle 6-8 hours of an event.

it's actually $400 rebate for the VR2 and $300 for the 24-70. . .I might actually unload my DX lenses on these boards/nikonians.org and jump ship. . .

yeah, the $300 is very tempting although I really love the old version and can barely justify spending almost $1k for the update (from d200 and 70-200vr), as it will cost around $3500 for the new d300s and 70-200vrII and I'll be more than lucky if I could get $2500 for the old setup

I just bought an old 70-200 on ebay. I can't wait to get it. Did the arrival of the 70-200 VRII actually make the price of the old lens rise? or is this a strength of dollar thing. A few years ago you could get it new for quite a bit less than used models are going for now.

I paid $1350 w/shipping.

I will be doing the upgrade soon. Since Amazon just lowered the price. I hear Nikon will offer some instant rebates soon. I'm also will be upgrading to a FX frame camera soon too from D200. Very Happy with the old version.

Could I have hand held this? Sure. But only if I were being very careful and deliberate. Not owning the old version I can't attest to how much of an improvement it is, but I will say that the VR works better on this lens than all my other VR lenses.

And the same shot without VR:

DX owner here. I opted for the VRII, but I also have plans to eventually go FX.

I will say that the implementation of the VR is stunning. I've never used a lens where it was so effective. Here's a quick test shot I did at 1/6th:

I haven't even gone from the 80-200mm f/2.8 to the original 70-200mm f/2.8 so why would I upgrade? The D90 doesn't have enough AF points to make autofocus a worthwhile thing to pursue and as to VR... I can old steady at a 1/5th of a second so I'm not complaining. Untill the D700 I use isn't borrowed there is no point for me to upgrade...

Only reason i'm considering ever more now (I'm a D200 user):
1. Instant rebate with body purchase - I don't need to upgrade my D200 just yet, but I'll get the lens and either sell or return the body and snag the $300 or so instant rebate.
2. I don't have anything fast beyond 60mm, or any sort of telephoto beyond 55mm. ie, don't have a 70-200 zoom. . . .

So it makes sense for me now more than ever. . .if I had the older version, I wouldn't make the switch even if I had an FX body as DxO corrects the vignetting automatically. . .

I also own D300 and 'old' 70-200, which is most sublime lens I've ever used. First two weeks I was only using F2.8, it was so sharp and fast. But it actually gets even sharper stopped down. I seriously can't imagine what difference 70-200 II would make, at least on DX. It's probably justified purchase for FX users, but for DX - absolutely not (unless you grow cash). Besides, is it me, or the old version is way more sexy???

Following the release of the dpreview review of the 70-200 VR II, I thought it would be interesting to see how the Nikon rumours community felt about this topic. The dpreview conclusion implies that it offers a clear improvemnt for FX owners but that DX owners will not see a huge increase in performance. I have a D300s and the 70-200 VR and have never been less than stunned by its performance. I have never encoutered vignetting problems with the type of photography I do. I generally use it for wild life and 'detail' work with or without either the 1.4 or 1.7 TC. At f/4 to f/5.6 it is pin sharp up to 280 mm and very sharp up to 340 mm. Will the new lens show a significant improvment? There is a lot of hype and pressure to upgrade. But is it worth the trade-in, or should we DX owners wait for the VR III and spend our money on one of the other of Nikon's new 2010 lenses that seem to be coming soon?