yray

This camera/lens combo looks pretty massive to me. Could someone remind me why was it Nikon chose not to reuse the F-mount? Seems like shooting themselves in the foot.

Well, it depends on how good is your bag, how well you pad the camera and the lens, and how careful you're at handling and not dropping it. I used to routinely carry Nikon D3S with the Sigma ...

I agree with this sentiment about unique rendering characteristics, and use old lenses quite often for fun. They are also a pure tactile pleasure to handle, feel very solid and beautifully ...

Nuh... mid to late 70s and (maybe) early 80s was the heyday. At least for rock.

Incidentally this trio, 20-35/2.8, 35-70/2.8, and 75-150/3.5 is my preferred travel kit.

Other than the Sigma which I never had (but heard many good things about), I agree with with all of these. As far as primes, I would add 135/2 DC and 180/2.8D. I also find 20-35/2.8D and 35-70/2.8D ...

These photozone.de comparisons are very dated of course, as are the lenses in question, but they generally reflect my experience: http://www.opticallimits.com/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/247-nik ...

I never had any personal experience with the Sigma 120-400, but I have Nikon AFS 70-300 4.5-5.6 VR lens. It is a decent lens for the money, and a decently sharp lens. However, from my perspective, ...

The old 200-400 does a very decent job with the 1.4x TC. In fact I don't see any improvement significant enough to justify the cost differential. I do acknowledge though that a built-in TC is ...

IMO, for sports with less than aesthetically pleasing background, the old 200-400 does a better job without a TC. It also means being able to shoot at a lower ISO, which is definitely a plus with ...

How do you know that you'll like Sony better, on the entire range of attributes, starting with ergonomics and ending with IQ? I own Ai, AF-D, and AF-S lenses, and if I enjoy using them, then why ...

The lens has been out of production for probably at least 5 years, so not likely to be found at a retailer. I mentioned above that one of my copies was better than the other, the really good one ...

Back in the day when I did most of my sports shoots using D300, Sigma 100-300/4 was my go-to lens. I liked it so much, I bought a second copy, just in case. That second copy wasn't as good as the ...

Not directed at you, and not meant as an offence. All I'm saying is that I've observed many times that opinions here follow trends, and the same thing that is generally praised to high heaven at ...

Interesting to me that a lot of comments I'm reading now about 80-400 G echo those I had heard back in the day about 80-400 D, especially as regards sharpness at the long end. It is curious that I ...

300/4 AFS is an optically excellent lens, even with the 1.4x Nikon TC, but it is not a 70-200/2.8 replacement. The 70-200/2.8 is a very versatile lens for portraits, events, theater, and some ...

Let me break news to you -- we're in a freakin' mess.

You assume that everyone is going to rush to get rid of their DSLRs and lenses because of this? That is a little hard to imagine. More likely some folks with a lot of spare cash will add a ...

Both are very good lenses. I generally prefer the zoom due to versatility, but it is significantly larger and heavier, so 180/2.8 is much less troublesome to take places, and it is also much more ...

If you're happy with how your Sigma 120-300/2.8 works with the 1.4x TC, both in terms of IQ and in terms of AF speed, then I would probably get rid of both the 200-500 and the 400/2.8, because one ...