I saw that in the announcement and thought.... the first iteration was 3-stops, subsequently we heard about VRII and suspected 4-stops but I don't think I really saw that in print - perhaps Japanese marketing prefers odd numbers and the implication of 4-stops was enough. Given all that (my bull, not implying Nikon is spewing) if you are going to improve something claiming 5-stopss makes sense.
I guess I didn't give the technical aspects of the claim any real thought. But thanks to your post, when I think about it more, saying 5-stops makes somewhat more sense than a vibration equivalent of f/1.2
I like my f/4 zooms. I have the 16-35mm AFS VRII and 24-70mm f/4 AFS VRII. I also have the 70-200mm f/2.8 AFS VR. The latter is heavy, but I could hardly want for a better lens. It's construction is notably better than the f/4's but then they are known apples and oranges in that department. When the 24-120 was announced, I really had a hard time getting my head around buying another lens where the hood was affixed to the traveling zoom barrel. However after using the 24-120mm now for quite some time and in routine handling - not abuse and not coddling - I find that the construction is very robust and I really like the package.
Since I'm becoming more weight conscious, and the 70-200mm f/2.8 now makes very few trips, this might be an alternative in that focal length range that is quite useful.
Roger It's still, ISO, aperture and shutter-speed, right?