I'd go for the better. Three years from now you'll be either enjoying the VRII lens or regretting not buying it. $800 isn't worth three or more years of regret. The longer you enjoy the more expensive lens, the less it will have cost you per month. Also, if you're like me, there is a passionate side to photography. The thrill of getting the photo you want is worth a lot.

Two years ago I saved a lot of money buying a Tamron 28-270 lens instead of the Nikon 70-300 to use on a two week trip to London. My best pictures from that trip are soft, a great disappointment. So I bought the Nikon 70-300 anyway six months later! Want to buy a Tamron lens cheep?

All of the specs of the newer lens is hype to sell more new lenses. Yes, the new lens is slightly better, but if you took side by side pictures of the things you like to take pictures of, you'd be hard pressed to see any difference at all. Trust me! I own Canon products and they do the very same thing to sell more product. I just purchased a new (used) wide angle 16-35mm f/2.8 L series lens yesterday for $810. The newer Mark II lens that Canon makes is $1550 after rebates. Almost double what the previous lens cost me that was lightly used. Unless you've got some money burning a hole in your pocket I'd go for a good pre owned lens. Besides, I doubt that your camera body is going to last as long as you think. You could put the money you save toward a new body in the not so distant future.

Right. If you're going to spend that much money for a lens, why not get the better of the two? If you don't, you'll always regret it.

Eventually, you'll get to hate that lens, and you'll stop using it. You'll put it on ebay and sell it for just a few dollars. By then, the price of the VRII will be much higher, or there will be a VRIII. You'll wind up getting a second job or working overtime to get the $4,200 for the VRIII.

Get the VRII and save yourself the misery of trying to save money. :D