So, I'd like to add a longer lens to my kit for sports. Primary sport will be softball, so mostly outdoors in good light, but some night games as well. Other sports are likely to be basketball and volleyball (indoors). This is not a revenue generating opportunity, so my budget is about $2,000. I have no problem buying used or refurbished. I also like fast glass, but my budget doesn't quite make it possible.

Current lenses (all Nikon)
17-35 f2.8
24-70 f2.8
70-200 f2.8 VR I
Body: D3

Options:
80-400mm G (used around $1,500, new $2,200)
80-400mm D (used around $700-$800)
200-500mm (new $1,400)
200-400mm f4 VR I (local used lens on CL, guy asking $2,400)
300mm f4e (new version, $2,000)
300mm f4 (used, old version, $500-$800)
TC-20 III ($350-$500, used or new) to be used on the 70-200.

I'm leaning towards the 200-400 f4 VR I, with the 80-400G second. I think the previous 80-400 will focus too slowly. The 200-500mm sounds interesting, but I imagine the IQ isn't as good as the 80-400.

The teleconverter option is the cheapest, but probably delivers the least spectacular results. The Sigma sports 150-600 is also an option, but I'm worried about focus speed (or able to focus at all) at 6.3.

Lastly, the new 300mm f4e is intriguing, but not sure a prime 300 is enough extra reach over 200mm (50%).

Too bad a 400mm f2.8 and is way too far out of reach.

Also, I do have a good shop nearby where I can rent most of these lenses, so I could try out the options before hand and see how the work in the real world. The used 200-400 has been reposted multiple times, but I do worry about missing out on it.

I say the 200-400 because...... Well, it's the freaking 200-400!

Putting your D3 is DX crop mode (or just crop in post) can help a little.

Remember that the TC will also eat up two stops so your 70-200 will be F/5.6.

The 70-200 VR is a fantastic lens.  I have an older 80-200 2.8 that I bought for under $400, and it is absolutely fantastic.  I have shot sports with a TC-20 and it did the job but wasn't as sharp as I would want, and autofocus was either too slow or not working, I don't remember.  That was shooting a racing event.  

The 80-400 is also really a slow lens, and is not efficient with light.

Your concern about the Sigma 150-600 being slow is correct.

The 200-400 is a great lens but it is over-priced IMO.

The 300mm prime is going to yield the sharpest results, which is why it is the common go-to for lots of pro shooters at sports events.  They aren't light though, but they are lighter than anything else that is longer than 300.

If you aren't making money with it, then the less expensive 80-400 or fixed 300 would be the choices.  As an alternative, I have had good luck with Tamron higher end stuff, which can help with the budget.  And renting to try them out is a great idea.  My local shop is about $25 for a decent lens rental

I'm certainly not an expert sports shooter, so take anything I say with a grain of salt.

I owned the 300 f/2.8 VR in the past, and currently own the 300 f/4E PF, and I think you are right that it is probably not enough reach for (outdoor) sports.  Great lenses, but to me, they sort of fall into the "mid-range" category, especially for a softball/baseball field. Probably OK for the indoor sports, though, and maybe even a little too long at times (underneath a basketball goal, for instance).   If you do get a 300mm lens, I would recommend the 300 f/4E PF over the older 300 f/4 version.  It is small, light, sharp, and focuses quickly. You can hand hold it all day.  It's not a 300 f/2.8, but it is pretty good.

One of the main benefits of the fast (f/2.8) lenses, is the ability to "blur out" the busy backgrounds that are so prevalent at ball games.  People on the sidelines, chain link fences in the background etc., can ruin what would otherwise be a great shot.  So I'm not sure a lens in the f/5.6 or slower range, would yield acceptable results.  f/4 might be OK, but f/2.8 is the choice of professionals.  I understand the price limitations, though....they aren't cheap.  

Of the lenses you listed, I think the 200-400 looks like it might be a good choice.  Maybe renting one for a day to see if it gives the results you like, would be the place to start.

Good luck.

This is what I was thinking, but what is the realistic difference in subject-isolation blurring from f4 to f5.6?  If I run a DOF calculation at 400mm, I get 14.7' DOF at f4 and 20.9' at f5.6, which doesn't seem like much difference for a subject 180 feet away.  

While not a Nikon lens, I was looking at this review of the 400mm f2.8 Canon lens, since it shows the same exact image shot with different f stops:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-400mm-f-2.8-L-IS-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

From f4 to f5.6 is a noticeable change, but not to an extreme degree like f2.8 to f5.6.  

I stopped at a local shop today and got a chance to handle a 200-400 (what a beast!) and the 200-500 f5.6.  I didn't have my D3 with me, but I did play with the 200-500 on a D5 body.  Seemed to focus pretty quickly, but I think the D5 is capable of faster focus with less light than the D3, so that doesn't really mean anything.

I verified that they do have the 200-400 VR I, 80-400 G and the 200-500 in their rental fleet, so I think I'll rent all three soon and give them a whirl.

You know, the more I think about it, the more I think you might be able to cover the infield of a softball field pretty well with a 300mm lens, assuming you have reasonable access to the field.  It's only about 85 feet across the diamond.  Of course, the outfield would be a stretch, even for 400mm.  

Have fun with the rentals.  Sounds like a fun lens test.

Have you thought about going third party?

There's two versions.  This is the one you want.
Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 DG OS APO HSM

Sigma sells refurbs on their website.  This lens is seriously reduced in price.
https://www.sigmaphoto.com/120-300mm-f28-dg-os-hsm-s-refurbished

My first "fast" zoom was a Sigma 70-200 f2.8.  It was a pretty good lens, but when I had the chance to get the Nikon version, I made the switch really fast.  So no real problem looking at 3rd party stuff.

The lens you linked seems like pretty nice, but way out of the budget.  On the refurb, I only see the "Sigma SA" mount listed, not a Nikon mount.  The new price matches what I can get a used Nikon 300 f2.8 prime for, and in any case, is double what I'm willing to spend*.



*In reality, it's double what I think I can get away with spending before pissing the wife off too much.....  

You need to have the plastic ready when something shows up on their site, same as Nikon.
I'm looking at Sigma for my next f2.8 zoom because Nikon's pricing is becoming too high.

The Nikon 200-500 has a big problem in my mind with the minimum aperture. I recognize it is a trade-off to not spend many times the price, but I would have to think twice about buying a lens that had a comma in the price AND was the slowest lens in my kit (even slower than my archaic 70-210 f4-5.6).

If you are looking 80-400, my understanding is go with the newer one. The first generation of that lens was not particularly great.

-shooter

Interesting idea about using a DX sensor to effectively make my 70-200 a "105-300" f2.8 lens from a FOV perspective.  With the bumped up pixel count, that should also allow for tighter cropping to increase the effective reach as well.  I had a D300 before moving to the D3, and on paper at least, the D500 looks like a very sweet camera.  When I bought the D3 about 6.5 years ago, I needed better low-light performance and higher frame rates than the D300 could provide.  The D500 seems to match up to the D3 in those areas quite well.  I've definitely gotten my money's worth out of her (bought used), but I don't think she's ready to retire just yet.  

What confuses me is that the DXOMark score for "Sports" on the D3 is still almost double the D500:
https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D500-versus-Nikon-D3___1061_438

I have about 4 months of time on my D500 - I have NO CLUE why the D3 would rate hire for sports - the D500 represents a huge improvement in high ISO/low-light performance over any 10 year old technology out there, it focuses quickly, and the frame rate is OUTSTANDING.

-shooter

If you're considering the Nikon 200-500 you may also want to look at the Sigma 150-600 Sport. Image quality is on par with the Nikon (some reviews claim saturation better on tthe Nikon, but sharpness better on the Sigma) and you'll have more reach.

https://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/DxOMark-Camera-Sensor2/Portrait-Landscape-and-Sport

In my email this morning from Adorama:
D500 with MB-D17 grip and cheap accessories kit: $1,797 with free shipping.  Looks like B&H has matched it.  Seems like the prices are already coming down.

Yesterday I was shooting my daughter's tournament softball team.  3 games with the D3/70-200 combo, 1,622 shots (jpeg+raw)* and my battery went from Full to Half.  I do have to say that old workhorse's battery life is pretty spectacular......


*I've shoot jpeg+raw for as long as I can remember so I can quickly review the images for focus accuracy, framing, etc. and delete the ones I don't want.  I then work on the raw files of the keepers.  But I really went overboard yesterday with the shutter release, so that has me rethinking my process.

I haven't looked in a while, but is there a fast viewer for raw files now?  Any experience with this codec from Microsoft?  https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=26829  I use Photoshop CC  ($9/month with my Flickr Pro discount).  I'm running dual 32GB CF cards, so I'm not worried at all about storage capacity.  But it is probably slowing my camera down in the process, as I know I ran out of buffer a few times yesterday.

I've never tried it, but everyone says Photo Mechanic is the fastest way to sort and cull out your photos.  They have a free trial, so it might be worth trying.

The built-in viewer in Win10 loads and views RAWs just aboit as fast as jpgs.

A bad Win10 install resulted in having to reformat my hard drive, losing some critical pictures in the process that happened to fall between back ups.

I installed that codec, seems to work pretty well on my old Win7 machine.

I have an older version of the 70-200 (VR1), which is fantastic on my D7100 and the equivalent of 300MM.

Decision and purchase made!!!!



Click To View Spoiler

Now to go out and get some test shots.

Send me your address. Immediately.

Made another purchase today too on the way back.  A Movo GH800 to put on my ancient Bogen/Manfrotto 3021.  Not a Wimberley, but also not $600......

Click To View Spoiler

My 300mm f/4 (older version) which was purchased as a refurb from Cametta Camera is a STELLAR performer!

I assume you were shooting birds with that 400 2.8 setup, and the flash has some kind of telephoto extender on it?  Does it actually work well at a distance?

Show offs 

Ain't that the truth.  I'm going to get my D50 w/18-55mm lens and go home to sulk.

Hey, don't knock the D50/15-55.  That's all I had for years.  All I thought I needed.

Then I got a used D200 and POW! the world opened up.