I acquired the 70-200/2.8VR a few weeks back, and within a week upgraded to the 2.8VRII. As I've told Golf007SD (we both live in Cali), I also recently acquired a 105mmVR macro. But it had a few issues...the rear mount had been taken off, so I'm ordering screws for it and had to realign the mount ring. Otherwise, it looks brand new -- and I paid a mere $450 for it from a pawn shop that didn't want to fix it (Note: lens, hood, and caps only; no box, no warranty card, no manual included). I have shot SPARINGLY with it, but am afraid it may get stuck on my D800. Yikes!!
Anyway, I've read some folks on other sites claiming the 70-200 is actually the SHARPER lens (at 105mm and F/2.8 of course). This....is hard....to believe. I got an incredible deal, and before I get the repair parts put together (ordered from England) to test for myself, I'm itching to get some feedback. I know the 105 is primarily designed for close-up work and it's strengths are pairing it with a ring flash, tripod, and stopped down for max DOF. I had the 100mm (non-IS) macro with Canon so I know how and when to use a macro. But if sharpness is very similar b/n the zoom and this lens, wouldn't it make more sense to sell for a profit and buy the still-formidable 105mm (non-VR) ? For further clarity, I have the 85/1.8g and the 70-200/2.8 if portraits or short telephoto were another "use" I considered for this lens.