It is tax time again... Do I finally splurge for the awesome-but-flawed 70-200mm f2.8 G VRII, knowing that it is much shorter at long focal lengths, or the older-and-slightly-less-awesome VRI with its soft corners on FX bodies? I don't have an FX body now, but I want one. Or, do I get a third party lens and hope for the best again? I do feel the need to be shooting at long range with f2.8-f4 apertures, to get that OOF background compression, but I want excellent sharpness and pleasing bokeh all at the same time.
All of the options are making my head hurt somewhat. It just seems like there's no correct answer for this question in the Nikon system. Canon, on the other hand, has it nailed with a super-sharp 70-200mm f4L IS, which delivers the same sharpness as their much-vaunted IS II version of the f2.8 big dog. And, they do so at around $1100, making it an great choice for someone on a budget. Where Canon drops the ball is in the lack of on-camera wireless flash control (yes, the 7D has it finally). I don't care much for the image quality of the 7D straight from the camera.
There are simply no perfect choices which meet my needs, my budget, and my image quality expectations. Very frustrating!