80-200AFS versus 70-200VR

I own the 80-200AFS, and have since just about when it came out. I'm all emotionally wrapped up with it, we've been through some very interesting places and moments, and the lens never lost me I picture.

However, I shoot in abysmal light, often, and in situations where a tripod or monopod will add enough time to cause me to lose shots. The 24-120VR and the 80-400VR have become my money lenses when shooting for the jazz musicians I work with. The 80-400VR, however, just doesn't have the sweet feel to its images that the 80-200AFS produces.

I have been able to completely resist swapping the 80-200AFS for the 70-200VR to date because I had substantial Nikon manual focus gear, and it just didn't make sense to me to swap to VR in that range and then mount it on an F3. Well, the last F3 and assorted gear are on ebay.

The cost of swapping to the VR won't be awful - the AFS lens is still in great demand. I feel like if I put a 1.4 and 2 converter in the bag with the 70-200VR I'll have achieved a significant weight reduction in my normal carry kit, since I almost always have both the 80200AFS and the 80-400VR (very, very different lenses.)

Anybody been through the switch? Any downside to the 70-200?

 

I just shot the first few shots with D2x/80-400VR

Somehow or other, when I got a new camera, I got a new lens. It now snaps into focus even in dim, flat contrast subjects in a way that I associate with fast primes.

But still thinking about the switch, as long as I don't feel like I lose anything in image quality...