The Big One

I've not shot that particular lens, but IMHO there is no absolute longest time for VR... it depends on how steady you are, what you consider to be acceptable sharpness, etc.  The quality of the VR...

Sorry to hear about that lens... I have heard bad reviews, but never used it myself. While the Nikkor (new) is definitely on the high side of price for a DX lens, there are a few other...

I won't comment on focus accuracy (you should do some controlled tests if you are worried about it), but IMHO the turkey is way too far away for a good picture here.  You really need to get...

I had this exact same issue with the 100-300/4 (and in my case the 10-20 IIRC).  It gets more interesting though - if you delete the AF fine tune entry and add the 100-300/4 first, then add the...

Why do you want to replace it?  It is quite a nice lens, a good overall compromise between weight, image quality, price, etc. It may make more sense to supplement it with a fast prime or zoom,...

I don't have any links, I was just looking around a bit after the announcement out of curiosity, and my reply above is just commenting on the general consensus which I seemed to feel from various...

I've not tried the 80-400, but my Sigma 150-500 definitely gives good images, and for the difference in price that is absolutely the lens for me.  If they were both the same price, things would be...

There are older and newer versions of the 150-500 OS.  It is confusing, since they have the same name and specs; you can tell the difference by the outer coating of the lens.  The smooth plastic is...

It depends.When using LR4 and D7000 for portraits, I find that I get the best images (especially of skin tones) by underexposing slightly, and adjusting in PP.  From what I have seen, blown (or...

Agreed; I had 35 and 30, and sold the 35.  The 30 is sharp wide open, great rendering, has better build quality, and is 2/3 stops faster.

Personally, I wouldn't, unless you really want to spend the money.  The range is nicer on the Nikon, but the build is better on the Sigma.  I have played with both in store, and I preferred the...

I've not owned the 85/1.4, but I have (and still do) own a number of Sigmas.  IMHO the brand has an unwarranted bad reputation... my experience has been almost completely good.  (The 30/1.4 for...

Not correct, I started with LR3 student, and upgraded to commercial LR4.  I even asked their online chat support before I bought it to make sure it was legal and would work.

Interesting.  I have the 18-105 (and do quite like it, although it seems to be my last pick when going out for a shoot).  I have a number of other Sigma lenses as well, but had been thinking about...

For general shooting + wildlife, the 18-105 + Sigma 150-500 are a good pair (I have both).  I would recommend the 18-105 over the 16-85 for the budget conscious, as it is less than half the price...

I would not get them.  For the price of those lenses (approaching $100) you are much better off putting that money toward a good lens.  If you want wide, you can get a Sigma 10-20 used for about...

I was in this position (sans fixed income, but still on a fairly tight budget).  I picked the Sigma 150-500, after playing with it, the 50-500, and Nikon 300/4 + 1.7x TC.  All of these gave good...

Agreed.  In my mind the 18-105 is the better deal.  16mm is still not very wide, so if you really want wide angles you are going to want wider.  Get the 18-105 + a Sigma 10-20 for the same price as...

Pretty cool!  I have considered something like this to go with a DIY rain cover I made for my Sigma  150-500, but I have not had a chance to look for an o-ring.

Yes, but in this case Sigma appears to be disabling AF with its TC + 150-500, even if the body can focus to f/8.  The Kenko may not have this limitation imposed on it.As for using the Nikon TC, I...