Lens for wildlife photography

[ben4321]

For a long time now I've wanted to get into wildlife photography, but lacking a lens of sufficient focal length, I've never really got round to it.
I've been thinking about which lens to buy, and have narrowed it down to three options: Nikon 300mm f4, 70-200mm f2.8 (with a 1.4 x teleconverter it would become a 135-300mm f4, or the 80-400mm VR lens.
My instinct is to go for the 300mm lens as it is would provide maximum image quality for the least amount of money, but the 70-200mm lens would be more versatile. Maybe it would be worth saving up for.
As I still shoot a lot of film, the 80-400 lens is pretty much ruled out, it's just too slow, and VR is no substitute for wide apertures, especially with moving animals.
I was wondering if anyone has any experience with using these lenses, any feedback would be welcome.
Cheers,
Ben

[AdrianW]

No experience with those particular lenses, as I'm a Canon guy, but...

I have the Canon 200mm f/2.8, and it's a really nice sharp lens. When I add my Sigma 1.4x EX tc it becomes a nice soft lens ;) Shooting test charts it easily outresolves the consumer grade 70-300 IS at 200. At 280, with the tc on the 200, the 70-300 easily wins.

Now I know that some teleconverters suit certain lenses better than others, and it is a Sigma teleconverter, but even so...

If you need the reach, I wouldn't rely on the tc unless you really have to.

It might also be worth reading around on the TN forums, as this sort of question gets asked quite often over there. Also check out the shots different members have taken, although resized for web you won't really get an idea of sharpness, you will be able to look at the bokeh at least!

[Captain]

I would definately go for the 300 f4 which is a superb quality lens and can be had for a reasonaly price used on Ebay if you look. You could also pick up a good quality 70-300 Sigma DL or APO as well for the new price of 80-200 f2.8 Nikkor. Just a thought.