Is it worth spending the extra money on a Nikon vibration reduction lens?

Rather than a non-vibration reduction lens?

Matters what focal length

for a wide angle lens to mid range, basically less than 100 or so, you don't really need it, since movements are not as pronounced, but when you get into telephoto lenses, it can come quite handy, especially when doing sports

It is almost a must have (for focal lengths above 100mm) if you don't have stable hands but also helps A LOT with using slow shutter speeds in low light. Again having a lens with a lower aperture will also help you use faster shutter speeds and low ISO settings in low light.

I find it very important to have especially when I'm in need to razor sharp images. Other than that, I don't care. Yes. It's worth spending if you can afford it.

This will depend on several different factors:

1. What kind of camera do you have? Some cameras like the D90 can shoot using a high ISO without affecting the images that much. This means you can be able to increase the shutter speed on your camera and not need the VR.

2. Do you have a 2.8 lens? That allows more light in and can give you better images even without the vr.

3. There are more but I want to give you one that I use vr the most. Do you shoot sports photography? If you, you most likely will want a vr lense