Upload & Sell: On
That rather sucks, and there is no excuse.
Sure there is - I think this lens is perfectly executed for its target market: D7000 and D600 users. It aligns exactly with the design philosophy for those two bodies - sturdy, but not pro-sturdy. It doesn't have a tripod mount because most people in the target market for the lens don't want or need it (the vast majority of the Fred Miranda community isn't the core target for the 70-200 f/4). I think Nikon made a perfect set of choices - it is a good price, great value, very sharp, handles well, etc.
Whether it is a lens for many of us here is a different question. For me, my main complaint about my 80-200 is weight, and this lens would help with that a lot, and I'd probably live well enough with f/4 and VR vs. f/2.8/no VR/+1lb on my 80-200.
But for nearly $1600 (I'd have to get the tripod mount), I'm not sure I can see it when for as much as $250 less I can have a nice used copy of the 70-200 f/2.8 VRI, or I can save a little longer and pay ~$400 more for a used 70-200 VRII. Neither of those solve my weight issue.
I guess the good news is I don't have a compelling reason to run out and spend money right now , but based on the early tests and the price/specs of the lens, I think it is a home-run ball for Nikon, if a little overdue...