300 f/4 AF-S vs. 70-200 VR vs. 80-200 AF-S

How about getting the 70-200 and a 1.4tc or 1.7tc instead of the 300f4?

 

The 70-200 and 300 f4 are both great lenses. Both can be used with the 1.4tc so you can get the 70-200 with the tc for now then get the 300 f4 later and with the tc you get 420mm

 

300 f4 is hand holdable and the 1.4 tc works great with it

70-200 is a great lens, but you will lose length

 

Baseballer - I asked this same question a few weeks back in the sports forum and kind of decided on the 7-200 2.8 vr now and work towards a used 300 2.8 after that. I am also considering the 80-200 2.8.

I tend to shoot alot of sports and I am concerned about losing the length with the 70-200 as Gale mentioned. Good luck in your choice and all those sleepless nights trying to decide!!

 

I'd go with the 70-200VR now, then add the TC14EII, then save for the 300.

 

If you don't need VR the 80-200 AFS is a stunner. It is sharper from f2.8-4 than the AFD and MUCH better with the tc14e than the AFD is with a Kenko pro (I had 2 AFD's before getting the AFS). The 300 AFS f4 is another of Nikon's best IMO, and makes a great close-up lens in addition to being super 420 f5.6 with the tc14e. I don't have a need for VR, and that is obviously a consideration in your decision malking process. I find that I can justify a 300 2.8 and the f4, but not everyone does.

 

I'd get a 70-200 which you'll use more often and a TC-14 or 17 and then save for the 300 later. You can also use the TC on the 300 then..

 

get the 70-200, stunning lens. If you really need the 300, look at the 70-300 vr, its no slouch and about the same price of a TC...so you can get both!