Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR vs Tamron 70-200 f2.8 VC?

I can't seem to decide between the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR (first version, not the newer VR II one) or the Tamron 70-200 VC (newer version, not the older macro one).

I understand that the older Nikon 70-200 f2.8 vr has terrible corners on FX, but that is not a bother to me, as corners don't matter to me in my field of work.

They are both weathersealed but the Nikon has the focus ring in front of the zoom ring, which I prefer. The Nikon one is also a $1490, while the Tamron is $1390, both quite close.

Yes, I'm aware of the 80-200, but I feel there's a need for stabilization, especially at the 200mm end. The 70-200 f4 is too slow for my needs.

Quite torn on which one to get!

Why is it you "understand that the older Nikon 70-200 f2.8 vr has terrible corners on FX" Almost zoom lenses have some light fall off at the corners when 1) the lens is at its shortest focal length and 2) when you are shooting with the lens aperture wide open.

What you do NOT understand is that Adobe has a software solution for such happenings when you are developing the RAW image files. It is a tool called "Lens Correction" Most lenses used by Nikon, Canon, and others are listed, so you can automatically correct not only vignetting, but Chromatic Aberration as well.

I use my 70-200 mm f/2.8 shooting sports 99% of the time and thus do NOT need VR at all. When shooting sports I keep my shutter speed at 1/500 to 1/1250th second to prevent subject blur, so there's no chance that the slight camera movement during exposures will appear in the image.

I also am shooting sports four to five times a week, sometimes covering two games on a single day, so I must depend upon my lens to NOT fail after a few years of use. I'm not convinced that Tamron lenses are nearly as robust as Nikkor lenses.

You probably didn't get the memo. When buying lenses, go for the one that has the same brand as your camera. Only go to another brand if you can't afford the original. It's all about compatibility.