I have the the 80-200/2.8 AFS. I also have the 80-200/2.8 AFD two ring. I have never used either version of the 70-200/2.8 AFS VR.
I've used both my 80-200s for a lot of landscape, other nature, college ice hockey and high school football. I've done this with both DX (D300) and FX (D4 & D800e). The landscape and other nature work has been almost completely from a tripod in the middle aperture ranges. The sports shots have been handheld or from a monopod wide open with shutter speeds of 1/500 or faster.
I've found the AFS 80-200 is slightly sharper than the non AFS version. The 80-200 AFS gives me very sharp landscape images from the D800e, even when I print them at 12x18 inches and above. For my shooting style I don't need VR as my low shutter speed shots are from a tripod and my sports shots are at shutter speeds that make VR unimportant. I've never found any reason to upgrade to the 70-200/2.8.
The only upgrade I've considered is the Sigma 120-300/2.8 to give me a little more range for football.
For landscape shooting I would get the new 70-200 f/4 VR Nikkor instead of the f/2.8. I doubt you would miss the extra stop and you would have a smaller lens that would be much more comfortable to handhold.
Gary in SE Michigan, USA. Nikonians membership - My most important photographic investment, after the camera. D4, D810, D300 (720nm IR conversion), D90, F6, FM3a (black), FM2n (chrome) YashicaMat 124, Graflex Speed Graphic 4x5 My Nikonians Gallery & Our Chapter Gallery