yray

I cannot comment on the Sigma. As for Nikon, I can say that the picture is not representative of the quality and capabilities of this lens. The 135/2 DC and its sibling 105/2 DC are both excellent ...

There seems to be definitely some blur induced by the camera movement in the second shot. In the first shot, I can't be sure, but I would be inclined to think that there is some added blur there ...

200-400, even though it is an f/4 lens, has the T-stop closer to f/5. It means he would be shooting probably in the ISO 4000-5000 range. That's a major difference to an f/2.8 lens with the T-stop ...

The IQ looks good to me, it is a very decent lens. But the critter will eat your tomatoes while you're busy taking pics. ;-)

Right. I didn't mean macro, I meant close-up portraits and such.

I think an F/4 lens won't be bright enough for you. The 200-400 is also a very long and unwieldy lens, better for outdoors. I think your choice is between the 300/2.8 Nikkor and 120-300/2.8 Sigma, ...

I actually used this lens as recently as the last weekend, took it to a friend's farm. Here are a couple of samples, just for the colors:

Don't shoot close ups at 70mm wide open, it needs to be at f/3.5-4 in this scenario to be sharp. For moderate distances it is quite sharp even wide open, but best between f/4 and f/8. Good for ...

I guess it all depends on what you want from a portrait lens. Extreme resolution is not always welcome. This is 135/2 DC wide open.

What don't you like about 135/2 DC ? It is a terrific portrait lens, even wide open. The DC feature does seem to cause focus shift, which is probably the reason for some mixed reviews, so it is ...

I agree, 70-200 is a totally different use case compared to 120-300. The 70-200 is dramatically lighter and more compact, you can practically take it anywhere. The 120-300 is a monster, and even ...

This is an excellent lens, and still very good with 1.4x TC, but it seems to degrade a bit in sharpness past 270-280mm, something that doesn't seem to happen to its larger cousin, 120-300/2.8. ...

More or less the same applies to sports, going beyond 40-50 yards usually implies too much cropping. I have not encountered softness with this lens. I do find Sigma 120-300/2.8 a strong competitor ...

A bigger issue IMHO is why couldn't they get it right to begin with. Looking at http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/serialno.html#SuperZoom they have been making 5-10 copies of this lens per ...

In this case with a full-frame sensor you would want something that gets you to 400mm. I don't think there is an easy way to get you there within your budget without sacrificing quality one way or ...

I can't advise you about Canon, but as far as Nikon goes, with this amount of money I would shop used. There have been any number of new cameras and lenses released in the last few years which ...

I strongly agree with you that a zoom is preferable for fast moving field sports. But I wouldn't recommend dealing with two bodies, I think it is a real pain in the neck. Quickly switching from ...

Impressive!

When I was using mainly D300, my go-to lens for daytime sports, including soccer, was Sigma 100-300 f/4. An excellent lens overall, and very convenient too because it was as easy to handhold as ...

You will get something, but you really need an f/2.8 lens. With your lenses it may end up being an ISO 12800-25600 shoot. The longer f/5.6 lens is likely not worth the consideration at all. Yes, ...