Bay Area Reefers

I haven't shot with a 300, but i have a fair bit at 200 F/4 IS (canon's VR equiv). If you aren't shooting in bright light and a tripod, you will probably kick yourself for not having the VR at that range.

Yeah that is what I am thinking. I kinda want to go with a 400 but that seems like a lot of money.

We are going to the Pantanal and here:

So lots of birds and stuff.

I agree with Tony -at that focal length, unless you're shooting in really bright sunlight, you may find yourself wishing you had the VR. Unless you plan to using a tripod all the time; but even then iffy. Also, the variable maximum aperture on that lens won't let you stop down as much as you might want to at times. Shooting at 300mm, you'd be at 5.6, which isn't "slow" per se, but unless you're in bright light, it may not allow you the shutter speeds you're craving.
But if your hands as steady as hell, and there is plenty of light (and a tripod) you can use, you may be okay with the non-VR.

You can always sell the lens when you return

Do you have the 70-200mm VR already? If so, maybe considering carrying a teleconverter or two instead. Both the 1.4x and the 1.7x are excellent and there's virtual little to no degradation with using them. The drawback to the setup is of course the weight (the 70-200mm weighs quite a bit more than either of those lenses above). The nice thing about this lens is the fact that it's weathersealed and there's no extension of the lens with the zoom or focusing.

If I had to choose one of the above, I'd go w/the VR. Newer optics which many people report as being very usable. It will be softer from the 200-300mm range, but that's to be expected for something of that price range.

If you don't need the 70-100mm range, there's also the Sigma 100-300mm f/4 as well. I've used that lens before in the past and it's a great lens for the price. Finally sold mine when I picked up the 300mm f/4 AFS.

Thanks Eric -

I have the 18-200 vr.

Any particular teleconverter from B&H better than others? Maybe I'll end up getting the teleconverter and the 70-300 for super super powers.

I am interested in the Sigma, but I think the VR will be worth it.

VR only way to go rich, been there done that

1.4x TC
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/228165-USA/Nikon_2129_TC_14E_II_1_...

1.7x TC
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/337511-USA/Nikon_2151_TC_17E_II_1_...

If you have the 18-200mm VR lens, then I actually wouldn't use any TC with it. You kind of need a faster lens with TCs since you lose stops of light with TC (1 stop with the 1.4x and 1.5 stops with the 1.7x).

What that means is that at that lens will be a 280mm f/8 lens to start out with (f/8 is one stop less than f/5.6 which is the max aperture for that lens at 200mm). Your camera will autofocus at f/8, but you're only capable of shooting at f/8 or a smaller aperture. Using that lens with the 1.7x TC isn't really advised since you're looking at shooting at f/13 or so, plus you lose autofocus w/the lens.

If you're looking at shooting birds, you really can never have enough range. Unless you're willing to plunk down a good amount of change, I would look at something with a huge zoom range.

Here you go (something with crazy zoom, plus OS - Sigma's version of VR/IS):
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/682766-USA/Sigma_738306_50_500mm_f...

Well, that is indeed the dream lens...don't know if I can swing it! But, its really the right 3rd lens for me. 18-200 for most everything. 105 for tiny things. 50-500 for things far away. Seems like the right freaking choice. Do it once and do it right! If not that...not sure!

Thanks so much for the detailed response. Very helpful.

Ebay for a grand.

For canon. Boo.