Which of this two telephoto zooms is better for my d7100

I ended up deciding to go for the D7100. I want to get a 70-200mm f/2.8 for it. Which is a better option? A nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 or a nikkor 70-200mm f/4 VR? I do want the 2.8 aperture but the new f4 seems great. Of course, if I go to the store and I find a nice used 70-200mm f/2.8 VR first gen, I buy that one but I dont know which of those two options should I get. Another option might be the Tamron 70-200mm VC but I want to get Nikkor glass.

Is the 70-200mm f/4 a better buy than the 80-200mm f/2.8 regarding image quality and bokeh. I do love 2.8 zooms, and I previously had a 70-200mm f/4L from canon which was nice, but wanted a 2.8 for my Nikon.

Thanks!

I'm confused.

You want to get a 70-200mm f/2.8, but you're asking about the 70-200mm f/4 and 80-200mm f/2.8? Why not just get the 70-200mm f/2.8?

The things that I prioritize image quality, nd i cant afford the new VRII f/2.8. My question is if its better to get a 70-200mm f/4 and get the VR and Af-s but lose the 2.8 or get the 80-200mm and lose VR and AFS but get 2.8.

That make sense, I'm tracking now.

The missing info element then is what kind of shooting do you do? Nikonpup has one alternative that wasn't mentioned, using a non-Nikon lens so that you can get it all. If you're shooting mostly tripod mounted, static subjects, then maybe the VR and AF doesn't matter as much and the low light functionality can really be taken advantage of. For me, I probably need the VR more since I tend to shoot handheld more. The IQ of the lens is one thing, but if you need a AF or VR to get that sharp image, are you going to impact IQ when the lens doesn't have it?

Well i mostly use my 70-200mm for outdoor use, where light is normally sufficient. Now i'm planning to use it for portraits a little bit more than before, and there its when i come to the doubt, because f/2.8 i nicer than f/4 for bokeh and portraits. I had an f/4 and I managed extremely well, mine didnt have VR, and I didnt need it because it was a light lens. I wanted to get a 2.8, but maybe there are more situations in which i take advantage of VR and AFS than f/2.8, it's a difficult decision. I think it might be difficult to handhold a 80-200mm without VR and get good pics with it when shooting slower than 1/250. I'd really appreciate help from someone who has had the chance to experience this difference, as I've only had an f/4 and no 2.8s.

I highly recommend the Tamron SP 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD. Image quality is as good or better than
the Nikon equivalent and you save big bucks. Right now B&H has a good rebate offer. I have this lens and it's one of my best (fast) lenses. Great bokeh and razor sharp. I won a contest with this shot: