Hansplast26: I think this lens is overpriced (like many nikon lenses), yet it will sure sell like hot cakes. For a fraction of the price you get the very decent Tamron AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6, for field work this lens will do just great.
My case in point is the Sigma 70-200 F/2.8 lens. Got it Tuesday and returned it Thursday. This turned out to be you get what you pay for. It was only $1250.00 but wide open too soft and too much edge softness at the other apertures.
Gregg Humphrey: nice test and images, but why all static subjects? No action shots, or wide-open, shallow DoF images ?? I like the smaller dimensions and weight of the F/4 VR, but not at the cost of action and shallow DoF capability. And $224 extra for the tripod ring is obscene, Nikon is really gouging on that one imo.
I agree. Lighter and smaller than the 2.8 counterpart. Who would need the overpriced tripod ring to begin with.
You're all saying that Nikon is gouging people for the tripod mount ring yet you are ordering the thing. If people don't buy one of those things then maybe Nikon will get their head out of their rears and re-think the price. No way I will pay the price. For what they are charging for the lens it should be part of the package.
I have read review after review of 300mm lenses. Does any company make a 300mm that is sharp at 300mm? Most of the reviews of the zoom variety say that at 300mm it's soft. So why buy a 300mm zoom? Also can't seem to find any plain 300mm lens reviews where they aren't soft either.