>The 80-200 was the best I could afford. Given what I shoot, >the VR wasn't a big deal for me, certainly not $1,000 in >difference, for a sport where I shoot 1/640 minimum.
>For the moment, my need/desire to upgrade to a camera that can >actually do ISO 6400 is more important than a need for a VR >lens (and I've not had good luck with the one VR lens I >have...had to send it to Nikon to repair the mechanism).
It's not the VR. It's that the 70-200 has it's own focusing motor built in unlike the 80-200 and it focuses literally twice as fast. HUGE difference. I never use the VR on this lens.