Shrink? Nah.
In 10 years can you sell that shrink visit? Nope.
Can you sell that lens? Yep (and maybe even for a profit!)

;)

I must admit, that the 300/2.8 is what id like to be buying next, even tho i already have the 200-400.
But im planning on getting the 400/2.8 instead, and i also have the 200/2.
wait, now i know where all my hard earned money is going, damn i never realised!, i keept blaming my gf for using em, no wonder she gets mad.
You may call me "The Lens Collector", once i see a lens i want, i just cant stop myself from saving up and buying it, i really need to see a shrink.

We now have a PM system :P

so there's two of us :)

Adamz thanks for that comparison. Having the 70-200 on a second body is exactly what I was thinking for those grab shots. Lots of birders do this.

I really am leaning more and more toward the 300mm2.8 now, especially now that I've seen it's size and I certainly do not want to check any of my gear when getting on a plane. I think I may have a new dream lens now :)

<table border=1 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 width=600>
<tr>
<td>300/2.8</td><td>200-400/4</td>
</tr>
</table>

Gentoo - IMHO 300/2.8vr is the best lens when You need range and portability at the same time, and I'm not thinking about weight as app 1pound isn't that much once, as both lenses are very well designed. I'm writing about the length, which in many cases decides either You'll be able to take the lens on board or need to check it in. 200-400 is a long bastard :)
as for possible distances You can get:

                 300/2.8vr                      200-400/4
                           n/a                                200/4                       - 200-400 is a winner
                     300/2.8                               300/4                       -  300 is a winner, probably the sharpest lens in whole Nikon collection
                        420/4 (TC14)                   400/4                       - I still would go with 300 as it gives You additional 20mm - IQ comparable
                     510/4.8 (TC17)                  560/5.6 (TC14)       - I would say tide - You gain more light with 300 and more reach with 200-400
                     600/5.6 (TC2)                                                        - 300 is a winner, 200-400 may not AF

so as You can see 300/2.8vr gives You more options, I would say that the only thing it lacks is zoom :) - as it may get handy, but OTOH once You are buying such a lens, You often have at least two slr's, so there's no problem with mounting the 300 + TC17 (I wouldn't go for the TC20 unless I would really need the reach) on one body and 70-200 (maybe with TC14) on the second one, as a backup camera in case You would need a shorter range.
As for using 300/2.8 as a 600/5.6, well it still has a better IQ than any other cheap (under $5k) lenses, maybe apart from Sigma 500/4.5 (but it's a little too dark once You add TC14).

Tell us more about the small Lady what was she we...... Sorry this is not facebook...

Actually the 300mm 2.8 is on my dream list also, but I would use it on the 1.7 converter I have seen great pics from that one with my 70 - 200

Pete

D3 + 300 F2.8 .... no wonder she looked small ... ;-)

LOL! I meant to say D3

I got the impression she was using that lens on her D40.

She was using the 300 f/2.8 Nikkor on a canon D30?

So, as you all know, my dream lens has always been the 200-400F4. Lately however, I've been interested in the 300mm2.8. It's not all that large (I saw a small lady at work who was wielding it around on her D30 effortlessly). I also like the 2.8 aperture and often get away with 300mm for larger birds that aren't too far off. With the Nikon TC I can get to 420 at F4.0 (if I did my math correctly) and even to 600mm at 5.6 I believe. That's if I were to dare use a 2X converter. It's also cheaper now than the 200-400 is and from what I've heard, it has stunning IQ.

Thoughts?