Marc R. Feldesman
This is a tricky lens to review. I owned the non-VR version but sold it because I didnt find it to be terribly sharp across the range from center to corners. The centers were sharp, but the corners were soft and I never felt I got the kind of sharp landscape photos for which I would normally use the lens. The new lens seems to have made some design changes (see Roger Cicalas excellent bench tests of this against the old one and the Tamron VR at the blog on lensrentals.com). In the main, Nikon seems to have provided optical formulae and design changes that sharpen the corners and the edges at a small loss of acuity in the center. This shows up most evidently in close up portraits of people, where the center just seems slightly (but noticeably) softer in the central portion of the frame. This is especially true wide open at 24 and 50 mm at f4 and wider apertures taken at a short distance away. On the other hand, landscapes seem to benefit dramatically from this new formula, as the whole frame appears evenly focused and it is quite easy to sharpen in post and for printing. In short, in my opinion, if your are considering this lens for portrait work, you may be happier with the older versions. If you are principally a landscape shooter, the VR, the E aperture, and the changed optical formula are a plus. Those are the pros of the lens. The cons are - higher price (about $500 more than the old version; nearly double the price of the Tamron), the lens is bigger (both by weight, by length, and by volume), and it takes the less common 82 mm filter size. In all, the lens is hefty, quite sturdy, and would probably be a burden to carry along with the holy trinity of fast Nikon tele zooms (14-24, 24-70, and 70-200)