Silly 70-200 comparisons....

For shooting landscapes, the f/4 appeals to me.

I have the 70-200 2.8 and when you're lugging around a second camera body and a few primes, maybe a second zoom in your bag, along with a tripod, the added weight and bulk of a 2.8 VR is tough to justify on longer hikes.

Sure those who paid big bucks for a 2.8 will defend their reasons for buying one, even if all they do is photograph their pets, but it's nice that Nikon is finally offering a 70-200 f/4 VR.