QUOTE(seather @ Jan 4 2012, 04:25 PM)
thanks for the advise... i managed to test a 80-200 AF-D and picture quality wise i cant tell the difference with the VR2

the x2 price is for the VR2 n Nano coating i guess

I would say,
if your budget allows you to go for the new one ..then go for new one lo. Most of the time you cant go wrong with the latest lens(unless its super crap). There is no rule saying new / hobby photographer must use old lens then slowly move up. You may never know when situation arise where a newer tech say, VR2 helps you to nail a shot or the pin point AF accuracy. For tele lens, spot on focus is critical, wider lens off by a bit still ok ok... tele, if you off .. haha sorry, rambling...
QUOTE(jchue73 @ Jan 4 2012, 04:58 PM)
Most of the time, you cannot tell the difference on image quality alone. But the difference will show in the speed of focus acquisition. The AF-S motor makes blinding speeds to acquire it's target.
Actually there are minor image quality differences. with older lens they tend to lost their coating after a while (a long while). mine duno why very slight yellow tint/hue. and sharpness well... that would be
nitpicking now wouldnt it? If newer Nikkor lens cannot beat older lens then we are in the wrong camp. That said, I fully agree that the major difference between 80-200 and say 70-200 vr2 is probably the SWM & VR, then probably weight, my kurakura weights a tonne. and ergonomics. push pulling quite inaccurate need more dexterity to fine tune. even the two touch is a major improvement already.