The 300mm f/2.8 VR is so much sharper than the newer 300mm f/4 PF version. Not only that, but if you plan to use it a lot with the 2.0 teleconverter, having f/2.8 is critical. Re: Nikon 300 f4 PF vs 70-200 2.8. You can't go wrong with both. I own the 300 PF and the 70-200 FL. The 70-200 FL focus much faster (AF wise) and is more versatile. And you have one stop of light more. I didn't use the FL much with teleconverters but others report it works pretty well even with the 2x. On the other side the 300 PF gives you I sold my Tamron 300mm f2.8 and purchased a Sigma. 500 f4.5 HSM EX, the newest version, which is usable with my. modified TC-14E and TC-20E, although AF is very problematic with. the 20E, it works very well with the 14E. If I was forced to make. a comparison between this Sigma lens and the Nikon f4, I would say. NIKON D850 + 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 @ 70mm, ISO 64, 1/160, f/8.0. After many days of extensive travel, I was thankful for choosing this lens for my telephoto needs and its handling was a big part of it. At just 680 grams and a height of 146mm, the Nikon 70-300mm VR AF-P fit one of my smaller camera bag compartments easily, and when mounted on a As stated the Nikon 400mm f/2.8 works extremely well with all three teleconverters. The 600 and 500mm f/4 work extremely well with the 1.4, works well with the TC 1.7 In good lighting, and a recent DSLR works well with the 2.0. All work extremely well in manual focus, with high contrast and sharpness. Mark. Feb 27, 2010. #2. I've owned both and if it was a choice between the two I'd go with the 300/4. If you need the flexibility of a zoom and you're on a budget I'd add a 1.4x TC to your 80-200 AFS. The Sigma 100-300/4 I had was unacceptable at f/4 from 250-300mm and I got better results with the 70-200VR + TC. A 300mm/f2.8 is a lot bigger and heavier than a 300mm/f4; of course a 2.8 is a lot more expensive also, about 3 to 5 times. Frequently, the bulk and weight of a 300mm/f2.8 would prevent you from bringing it on location. In particular, since a 300mm is frequently not long enough, you'll also need either a 500mm or 600mm. I currently have the 300 f2.8 vr1 and 300mm afs f4. Both lenses are remarkable and the f4 price point off planet. Quite often I want more reach that the 300mm lenses coupled with TC's just dont provide. I suggest the 500mm f4 afs plus the 300mm f4 afs for more casual shooting. peace, Ray goVHPr.