>snorvich@interaccess.com (Steven N. Norvich) writes:

>I agree with your views. I think the ONLY way to
>evaluate a lens is to use it in different
>circumstances and see what results. I have your
>lens evaluation. However I am trying to decide
>between getting an AF 300 F2.8 with a 1.4x
>multiplier versus an AF 400 F2.8. Any thoughts?
>Use will be sports photography and wildlife
>photography. Thanks much.

Hi-- I have not used either the 300mm AF (couple of versions) or the
400mm f2.8, so cannot say which would be the better way to go. If
you are into AF, that complicates the choice, also. With the 300mm f2.8
MF (which some people say is about equal to the latest AF, and better
than the first AF) and the TC14C (Sam Dodge occasionally advertises these
in Shutterbug for about $500 - are $1000 from Nikon, I think), which is
a tad better than the B at widest 2 apertures at corners, performance is
usable wide open, but is very good one stop down (f5.6 actual aperture).
If speed is important, the 400mm may make sense if you can stand the
weight, size, and expense! Grover Larkins has more experience with the
big, long lenses. You might try him at: larkinsg@rottweiler.fiu.edu
and see what he says. Hope this helps.
David Ruether