Somebody talk me out of this...

[Bram]

For that money you can arm yourself with all the equipment to shoot weddings and pay for your school and a new car with the proceeds.

Hahaha easy padre, how much money do you think I have? For the money of that VR lens ($2600.00) I can maybe get a new car, Not even close to paying for school nor equipment. lol.

 

[sobolik]

For that money you can arm yourself with all the equipment to shoot weddings and pay for your school and a new car with the proceeds.

Hahaha easy padre, how much money do you think I have? For the money of that VR lens ($2600.00) I can maybe get a new car, Not even close to paying for school nor equipment. lol.

Must have missed this part "with the proceeds" In other words the money earned from shooting weddings.

 

[nicolette]

I think I have not heard you complain about the amount of light, or ISO related noise, and you seem content with the range of your '40. I can understand that, because although I have just sold my '200, I am hanging onto my trusty little '40 myself. I need something with a little better high ISO performance for some of my shooting, and can no longer wait for the'700 replacement, so have decided to do an "interim replacement" with the '7000 and see what 2011 brings in the FX line-up for me.
That said, if I had no need for the souped up performance in very low light, and was not anticipating change in that any time soon, I would definitely opt for the best glass possible. After all, you may as well not take a picture if it is not sharp enough for your taste.

For what it's worth.

 

[Rosshole]

then lose the VR and buy this...

Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD (IF) Macro AF Lens AF001NII-700 -

And save almost $2000 in the process.

 

[Heck]

The sigma 200mm will put you in the same park as the nikon 200m at 2/8 with money left over. I went with the nikon 70-200 because I had the extra cash. I have a sigma 18 -50 2/8 and it's so amazing that I cannot come up with a reason to upgrade to a nikon lens in that range.