Telephoto - non-VR vs. VR vs. VR II

When buying telephoto lenses. How important it is to have VR and VR II ?

and i see that VR II is much more expensive than VR lenses. Does the extra cost justify the benefits of VR II ?

You can gain anywhere from 3-5 stops of faster shutter speed so yes it is important if you want sharp photos at slower shutter speeds. It permits you to go against the rule stating that shutter speed should be the same number or larger than the focal length. With the extra stops of speed, one doesn't have to increase ISO as much to compensate for low light or smaller apertures.

VRII lenses are newer and give additional 1 or 2 more stops of usable shutter speeds. So if you shoot a lot of handheld at lower ISO, then yes it is justified but the extra cost isn't just about VRII it is about the optical design for that particular next generation lens.

That being said, my 85 G and 300 AIS lenses do not have VR and I manage quite well without it.

I use a tripod most of the time...Another way to get sharp images at less cost...

I would love to see Nikon release the 70-200 f2.8 and f4 without VR, much like the options available in the Canon camp.