Looking to seek some advice from those of you who've shot sports for a while, or have one one of (or both) of the above mentioned lenses. I'm currently looking to pick up a telephoto lens for shooting sports to supplement my existing kit (Nikon D500, Tokina 11-20/2.8, Nikon 17-55/2.8, Nikon 70-200 VR II/2.8, Nikon TC-14E II). Sports I'd be looking to shoot would be primarily motorsports, but also some track & field. Some of you may say "why do you need VR when you're shooting sports", which is a valid question since you'll want to keep your shutter speeds up. However, when shooting motorsports I'll regularly shoot with slower shutter speeds while panning to blur the background and help give the sensation of speed. Also, this lens will be used recreationally as well for trips to the zoo and what not, so I'm not always going to be shooting at 1/1000. Also, the VR has a seal at the lens mount and presumably better weather sealing, which is a nice-to-have since car will race in the rain (and a lot of times that's when you get some of the best images). I recently had a chance to handle both of these lenses at Midwest Photo in Columbus, Ohio and was impressed with both of them. The 300/2.8 was the first AF-D, so modern optics and focusing motors, but no VR. Here are my thoughts: 200-500: VERY nicely built. I was surprised at how tight everything felt, how smooth the zoom action was, etc. The focusing ring was a bit loose, but I don't manually override the autofocus very often so that's not a big deal. VR is seriously impressive. I was hand-holding in the store and was easily getting 5 stops worth of stabilization It's only f/5.6, so shooting motorsports when the light levels drop may result in having to seriously crank up the ISO (unless I intentionally want slow shutter speeds for panning) It's cheaper than the 300/2.8 It's a zoom, so there's more flexibility as well as better reach (I could make the 300 a 420mm f/4 with a TC when more reach is needed). 300/2.8: VR not as good as the 200-500 (VR I vs VR III), but still better than nothing (the 300/2.8 I handled didn't have VR, and it was very evident in the viewfinder). Fast focusing motor. I thought the 200-500 focused fine, but the 300/2.8 is definitely quicker. I don't know if that matters much, or if the 200-500 would be "good enough" in terms of focusing speed (note that I would be shooting with the focus limiter on to eliminate the close focal range of the lens, which would help). It's f/2.8 vs f/5.6. This is the difference between ISO 1600 and 6400. While the D500 has a great sensor, limiting the ISO whenever possible is always a good idea. Note that currently, this is just a hobby of mine. However, I wouldn't be opposed to picking up some paid gigs where possible. I could buy the 200-500 new or used (they seem to be going for around $1,100 used, which is a good savings and would allow me to buy a 3-stop ND and CPL filter for the monstrous 95mm filters). I would be buying the 300/2.8 VR used. I've seen some deals lately where they're going for $2,000-2,500. I'd appreciate any feedback you can offer regarding these lenses for the intended purposed. Thank you.