I`m very used to the 105VR, which is my most used and probably favourite long lens from the past (years). I`m using it mostly for portraiture, with so satisfying results. Although I`m owner of longer lenses (>135mm), I don`t use very often. I have been tasting the new 70-200VRII for a few weeks; mine is one of the very first units sold around here. The first thing I did when I received the lens was a focus test, all seemed to be OK. Throughout this days, I have noticed some pleasant differences regarding VR, focus track, focus speed, vignetting, etc. But althought some images were so sharp, most of them lacked something I was used to. Then after a long shoot out with this same results, yesterday I get tired and performed some 70-200VRII vs 105VR indoor, sturdy tripod mounted, remote released, Live View focused test shots. Just what I feared, at 105mm (actually a bit more on the barrel of the zoom lens) the 105VR pics were noticeable sharper (at 8-10ft.). This pics have higher resolution and contrast. The difference is not big (I`d not say the VRII is soft or bad) but noticeable. I checked it at f4 and f8, with no differences at all. While the 105VR does, the 70-200VRII doesn`t seem to be improved two stops closer. Should I expect this differences as something "normal"? After reading some opinions on the web (where the VRII looks to be even sharper than the "already sharp" VRI) I tend to think that people are not used to my "standards", or... ... ... What do you think?