The 3 300's

I have had in the past the 300 f/4 and then sold it to get the 300 f/2.8 AF-S I. In terms of focus speed, nothing beats the AF-S. Both lens were/are tack sharp if proper techniques are used. I have not used the 300 f/4 AF-S. With the f/2.8, you have the ability to use all three Nikon teleconverters and still have acceptable image quality.

I hope this was helpful. Good luck with your decision.

 

I have both the 70-200 VR and the 300 VR, and the 300 makes the zoom look sluggish in comparison. One of the best sports shooters on here, Alex(Acena I think his tag is) touts that he never uses his 70-200 because the focus is too slow. That shows you what the 200, 300, and 400 AF-S primes have to offer in the focusing department. On top of that the 300 VR has improved color renditiong and bokeh over the earlier 300's.

Quick version: If you have the money, buy the VR, if you need the speed at a cheaper price, get the 300 2.8 AF-S I, if you dont need the speed, get the 300/4 AF-S

 

AB, if I were in your shoes, I would first buy the TC-14 and use that with your 70-200 for a bit. No, it's not a blazingly fast combo, but it's no slouch either. The 1.7 is just too soft and it's taking another 1/2 stop as well.

If you find that you still want more reach, speed, etc. any of the AF-S 300 2.8's are the way to go. Plus, you'll already have the TC-14, which will give you a 420mm f/4.

I think you'll find the AF-S 300mm f/4 is too slow for action, sports, etc. and you'd most likely end up with a 2.8 anyway, so...

As ipsofacto mentioned above, if you've got the dough, get the VR and never look back. I have the AF-S I and it's an amazing performer at about half the price (or less) of the VR. If you've got 2 bodies, slap the 300 2.8 on one and the 70-200 on the other and you'll be a happy camper...guaranteed.

 

How about the Tokina 300 f 2.8? Much less $$$. Anyone shot the Tolika and the Nikon?
(my limit is 2 lenses per month and I am already tapped out)

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=238

 

I use the 70-200 and 1.4 TC for little kids sports (think short field) and it does a good job and would probably hold you over for a little while. I just sold the 300 f/4 AF-S. It is a little too slow for field sports & nature action. I would echo the recommendations above for the 300 2.8 AF-S I if money is tight or the 300 VR if you can swing it.

FWIW, I sold the 300 f4 and am saving for the 300VR.

 

The AF-S II is just as nice as the previous version but with a few cosmetic upgrades, if you're trying to budget I wouldn't worry about the differences and stick with the earlier version for monetary reasons.

 

I have the first version of the AF 300 2.8. There are a few people here who I know have had this lens, but not a bunch (GBRandy’s…now mine, Eng45ine had one, Andreasb…went to GBRandy, and Bourbon Cowboy has one right now). Bang-for-the-buck, for me anyway, this has been a great lens. I have played with a couple of 300 VRs and I can tell you that their focus is superb. As for autofocus, my 300 2.8 ED AF focuses a bit faster on my D2H than on the D200. On the D2H the focus speed is on par with the 70-200. If I wasn’t swapping back and forth between the bodies I don’t know that I would notice the difference. The couple of times I have used it for wildlife it has hunted on me, and it hunts pretty slow, but I’m not complaining. Optically, I could not ask for more given the price.

The Nikon 1.4 & 1.7 AFS TCs will not autofocus with this older lens, but I do have a Tamron/Kenko 1.4 that works just fine.

Here is one from the Nikon Café get-together shot with the Tamron/Kenko 1.4 TC. I had just swapped bodies as the birds came in, and I was not in continuous autofocus mode. As the bird came in I was hitting the AF button the entire time to refocus, so I was VERY happy with the results.