Note: these tests were done in 2007, with the now older original version of 70-200/2.8 AFS VR, and the now older version TC20E-II. Both have been updated so thse results cannot be applied to the newer versions you would buy today.

This gallery attempts to answer the following FAQ:

How does the 70-200 VR + TC20E-II (400mm) compare to the 300 F/4 AFS + TC14E-II(420mm)? Two very different ways to get to 400mm at F/5.6.

Shot on a D200 on a Gitzo 1410 + Markins M20 Ballhead. Mirror Lockup. Indoors, carefully controlled. Shutter speeds 1/10s - 1/1.3s. Focus on the small test chart (like my Cactus Planter Adornment?). The cactus spines just to the left of the chart are within 1/4" of the focus plane. Anything else in the full frame images is more or less out of the focus plane and is gradually brought into focus as the lenses are stopped down.

These images are straight out of camera, except for the wide open 70-200VR image, which was a bit darker than the other images despite careful manual exposure. I suspect the 70-200VR may not be quite F/5.6 wide open. I have not investigated that issue. All images include High in camera sharpening. No other post processing or sharpening applied. JPGs rendered from NEF via Capure NX V1.1.

Conclusions:

By F/11 both lenses are performing very closely but wide open at F/5.6 the 300 is very useable, the 70-200 less so. At F/8 the 300 is very sharp, the 70-200 is just getting there.

If you need performance at 400mm, the 300 is the best lens for the job. It is almost fully sharp wide open with the TC. What more can you want? it does need to be shot from a tripod to get this level of performance. There you have a trade-off with the 70-200's VR.

I included downsized 1024x685 (web sized) full frame images with full exif. I include these for context because requests for image samples are usually answered with tiny web sized images. At web size, even the 70-200 wide open isn't bad. The 100% crop composite images tell a different story.