I have been experimenting with geography datatype lately and just love it. But I can't decide should i convert from my current schema, that stores latitude and longitude in two separate numeric(9,5) fields to geography type. I have calculated the size of both types and Lat/Long way of representing a point is 28 bytes for a single point whereas geography type is 26. Not a big gain in space but huge improvement in performing geospatial operations (intersect, distance measurement etc.) which are currently handled using awkward stored procedures and scalar functions. What I wonder is the indices. Will geography data type require more space for indexing the data? I have a feeling that it will, even though the actual data stored in columns is less, I thing the way geospatial indices work will eventually result in larger space allocation for them.
P.S. as a side note, it seems that SQL Server 2008 (not R2) does not automatically seek through geospatial indices unless explicitly told to using WITH(INDEX()) clause
In my opinion you should definitely use the spatial types only. The spatial type are optimized for spatial queries and if spatial queries are what you need then I think it is an easy choice.
As a sideeffect you can get rid of your geographical functions and procedures since they are (probably) built-in in SQL server 2008. One caveat though, you might have to spend some time optimizing the spatial indexes, but this depends on your specific case.