You are wrong, it is the same price. The launch price of the VRII was $2400 in 2009. Using the US inflation calculator that is $2700.30
The street price will of course be less soon after launch.
Why should the lens be the same price anyway ? All sorts of factors change over time including exchange rates and Japanese inflation levels etc.

As a working pro for 30+years it is my experience and opinion.

As the bulk of current users came into the field after it transitioned to a consumer electronic environment they are not generally concerned with the longevity of most of their purchases as they are encouraged (and used ) to upgrading regularly.
While many demand professional features, what many overlook is the prime professional feature of durability and support.

To me, the problem is 'good enough syndrome' - the value proposition goes out the window when you compare a lens like this to its predecessor, and becomes even worse when you think of the sure to come Tamron and Sigma updates, two companies that have resisted inflation admirably so far.
These lenses lose much of their appeal when you consider the relatively small improvements versus the huge price increase they offer. It's funny, because Fuji X or Sony E users don't suffer as much from this as do Nikon and Canon shooters, as they don't have older options at a lower price.

Yup. It looks like they're going to compete with medium format. I'll keep my Nikon kit as it does some things well. But Nikon's new price points have reached the threshold where I may as well spend a bit more for a larger format. P1, Hassy, Pentax, soon Fuji. A lot of systems at a lot of price points.

This is because DPR staff are pretty positive Nikon will shortly show they are listening to their customers and issue a firmware fix that switches the places of the two rings back, thus making everybody happy again ;-)

Way too short for a safari!

The 70-200 isn't much use on a safari trip unless you go to a place like Kruger National Park where you can get close to the wildlife.
A 70-200 is a portret lens for events and weddings. I bet almost every professional photographer has one.

I wish I was silly rich and bored so I could go on safari :-D

"who needs a lens with such huge dimensions and weight for practical use ? "
Well. concert photographers and others who shoot (indoor) events. Especially those where use of flash is undesirable.
In these cases it's very rare that you see a pro who *doesn't* use a 70-200/2.8.

It never ceases to amaze me how difficult it is for some people to look beyond their own needs.

This lens, like its Canon counterpart, is an industrial strength lens designed to deliver superb results under difficult conditions for decades with support from the manufacturer for that period.

As such it is very fairly priced

No, for Sony FE bodies, have a look at Cambo Actus mini view camera.

At last a meaningful comment, thank you, 2Careless, thank you for the hint. I had a look at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSVvDHPGbbA (Cambo ACTUS) it's really brilliant. Exactly this is what I am after. I have a couple of Minolta RZ67 lenses (37mm fish-eye, 50mm, 110mm and 180mm). The total cost would about $2500 (base, RZ mount, E mount) a tad bit less expensive than a PC19mm, but it wouldn't get 19mm FoV, not even close. The TSE17mm for $2200 would be the best option. But, I guess the ACTUS would give much more movements.

I have yet to confirm but I was told the Nikon 14-24 apparently has a large enough image circle for shift with the cambo actus mini. Also if you're mostly tilting, nearly all full frame lenses work well with the cambo. Only issue is shifting.

The D810 has revealed the lack of image quality available from the now old lenses. This was bound to happen eventually. In fact, it's been happening all along. The VR II lenses are the result of the step up from 6 MP to 10, 12 MP (The D200, D300, D3, and D700).

I agree, Nebulla and Teila Day. I have specific lenses for landscape and telephoto work (Tamron 24-70mm and 150-600mm). My D810 has actually revealed what great image quality can be obtained from the old 70-200 VR1 lens - IF used properly as a portrait or street photography tool, stopped down a bit if desired, but software or cropping will also solve corner sharpness and vignetting issues easy enough - especially with 36 MP to work with on a D810.

At launch in 2009 the list price of the VRII was $2400 USD. Plug that figure into the Government inflation calculator and you get $2700.03. There is no price increase. The large and expensive fluorite crystal element means the lens is less expensive in real terms !

Because Nikon and Canon and now Sony have long known that they can squeeze more profits from 35mm lenses as both crop sensor users and FF users can use them.

Sigma had a modern 50-150mm f2.8 OS and now a 50-100mm f1.8 which isn't setting any sales charts on fire.

So basically a high end crop sensor only Tele zoom lens which costs a bit doesn't seem have much traction in the market.

Actually the high end Fuji 50-140 f/2.8, Panasonic 35-100 f/2.8 and Olympus 40-150 f/2.8 are very popular.

The systems you mentioned don't have anything other than crop sensors. There is simply no option of using a lens designed for a bigger sensor.

Over here Nikon crop users have access to both crop lenses and 35mm lenses too.

was told by Nikon at PhotExpo-J made in Japan

Thanks for that. I was surprised that the 105/1.4 is made in China and wondered which, if any, other pro lenses were going to be off-shored.

most prefer Japan quality controls including the Chinese

You can if you like, but it won't work, because that's a silly idea.

While I complained myself, it is more about my not being able to afford it than anything. The truth is that in adjusted dollars it isn't really much more than the VR II when it came out, which in 2016 dollars was about $2700.

There is a clear upside to the arrival of this baby: the already superb VR II is seeing price drops and increased sales offers (they go hand in hand obviously) on second-hand markets such as eBay and FM.

Right. And while you're at it, ban Leica from coverage. And Sony. And Nikon. Canon. Even Panasonic and Olympus. Nobody needs anything by manual focus Samyang cheap junk. Right?

Those expensive lens are optically the most interesting ones, and although I cannot buy them I would hear much about them!

I am actually surprised DPReview doesn't do detailed reviews and comparisons between top selling phones for phone cameras (iphone, samsung and google ones at least). There is lot of interest from people for comparison reviews. I myself google for comparison camera reviews for phones whenever I am thinking about upgrading phone. I think, that is where the main internet traffic.

As Barney said, it won't work, but you can always ignore the reviews on anything above your price point. I do no care about video, and my version 1 of the 70-200mm 2.8 is very sharp. Don't need any other one.

That should probably be highlighted more. Especially if the D750 has issues.

You should read up on focus breathing (it can happen in either direction and foal length change is necessary to get rid of breathing), but the max reproduction ratio is 0.21x, so it's the same as Canon's 70-200 II in that regard.

I assume Scoobaru is worried about the significant focus breathing on the previous 70-200 (VR II).

That was frustrating. I was trying to answer this with maths, and spotted that Nikon's US web site claims a max 0.25x reproduction ratio for the old 70-200. I spotted that's a lie (after I got nonsensical numbers), and it's 0.12x according to imaging.nikon.com. Thanks, NikonUSA.

Right. With the old lens, we've got close focus of 1.4m (from, I believe, the sensor plane) and max reproduction of 0.12x. That means the nodal point of the lens is 1400/(1+1/.12) = 150mm from the sensor at close focus, and the thin lens equation says that's the behaviour of a 1/(1/150 + 1/(1400-150)) = 134mm lens.

The new lens has close focus of 1.1m and .21x magnification. The nodal point is 1100/(1+1/.21) = 191mm from the sensor, which means it's like a 1/(1/191+1/(1100-191))=158mm lens. Not perfect, but certainly not as bad.

Does that help?

I think the part that confuses many people is that in order to eliminate focus breathing, there has to be changing of the focal length (which is the part most people think they are referring to when they use the term focus breathing).

+ Dr_Ion - "...Canon is 166mm" where did you get that info? According to Tony Northrup, the current Canon is at exactly 200mm if not longer at MFD.

Matt Granger (Instagram) compared the Nikon new 70-200 to the VR II at MFD...it's much tighter, but no exact numbers given.

I used the maths helpfully provided by Steve Balcombe elsewhere on this site:
--------------
1/a + 1/b = 1/f (the "thin lens formula")
- where a is the distance from the subject to the thin lens, b is the distance from there to the sensor, and f is the focal length.

b/a gives the magnification of the lens (just from 'similar triangles').

The published "focusing distance" is the total distance from the sensor to the subject - which is simply a + b.
----------------------
So using the 1.2m MFD for the Canon and the MM of 0.21x you get:
a=4.762b
b=1200/5.762=208.1
a=991.73
1/f=0.0060274
f=166mm

BTW I'd previously thought the Canon was closer to 185mm. However the previous Nikon was measured at 134mm and the equation gives exactly that, so it works for me...
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm 1:2.8G ED VR II
MFD = 1.4m
MM = 0.12x at 200mm
a=8.333b
b=1400/(8.333+1) = 150
a=1250
f=133.9