It's ok-ish up to 135mm then goes down a bit till 200mm and is basically useless from 200-300mm. VR will help in the 135-200mm range where you can stop down to f/8-11 so that you get pretty good sharpness. But it won't help make it any better at 200-300mm as basically no matter how far you stop down it's still rubbish.
How do we know that it's optically identical to the old ED model? Maybe it's a new optical design. That would make it more interesting for a hiking / go everywhere longish zoom. Of course the AF-S and VR add additional weight and cost... So, I guess It'd BETTER be optically improved!
This is my big fear, I was told 4 months ago about this new VR version of the 70-300 ED.
The 'old' 70-300 is one of the best tools Nikon make. I own 3 and have 3 more on order, it is stellar for our work (skiing) pin sharp,compact and cheep. I hate VR and have found that every VR version of an existing lense is not as sharp as the one it replaces, ie 24-120 and the 70-200 are not as sharp as the old glass.
I have sold billboard and mag pics with the 70-300 and a monopod is my VR.
Gav
Well, to be honest it looks like a different lens to the old 70-300G and ED ones.It is bigger, heavier and the optical formula is completely different. In fact the MTF graphs look a lot better in http://nikonimaging.com/global/products/lens/af/zoom/af-s_vr_zoom70-300mmf_45-56g_if/index.htm
. If it is any good, I will definately get one to replace my 70-300G. It will be great for travel and it even has a proper AF-S motor, unlike the 18-135 which seems to have one of those A or M only mode things.
