hey, recently i made a post talking about telephoto lens for a nikon d70, well ive read up a lot more on several and have three to ask you guys about, keeping in mind that i will be doing mostly outdoors, wildlife, with some sports. Also what are the key differences between these lenses, and is for instance the nikon 70-200 2.8vr lens worth the extra versus the sigma 70-200 2.8hsm dg lens or the nikon 80-200 2.8 af. please feel free to post up any info you have or experiences (good and bad), the sharpness of each, and pictures taken. (and anything else that would help me decide)
-thanks ahead of time for everyones help with this decision
-shawn

one other thing, how much of a difference does the dg make on the sigma lenses, especially since its only going to be used with a digital. and is it worth the extra because adorama has a sale on the original
heres the link
http://www.adorama.com/catalog.tpl?page=searchresults&searchinfo=sigma%2070-200

I have the Nikon 80-200 without VR and it's a very sharp lens. I hear the VR lens is a little sharper and may be faster to focus especially on a D70, so those might be important for sports. I've used my Fuji S2 with the 80-200 for a little bit of sports and it's not bad when the action is moving predictably (like a car race with the car coming at you) but probably not the greatest for something like football - especially at night. And the VR would come in handy here (at night) too. I haven't used the Sigma but would guess that it's close optically and in performance (can't picture it being better).

But VR and (in most cases) faster focus speeds won't matter much with nature or wildlife. One thing to keep in mind - for the past few years Nikon has had double rebates closer to Christmas. On the VR lens, that could be worth $300 if you can wait.

I just ordered the Sigma DG version from Amazon for about 765. It should be arriving today. (tonight?) It's 7:15 PM in Texas and my 20D and Sigma 70-200 has been on their truck since 9 AM this morning. :)