Really stunning photographs Kyle.

I should clarify one thing about the sharpness and contrast comparison between the Sigma 150-500mm and Nikon 70-200mm with 1.7x teleconverter. When I compare photos from a series that were shot at continuous shutter release "rapid fire at 8 frames per second", I am looking at 100% crop on the computer to compare differneces in fine details on usually small subjects (birds mostly). When comparing the Nikon 70-200mm with 1.7x teleconverter shots with the Sigma 150-500mm photos at 100% crop, I can tell that the Nikon is sharper and usually with more contrast. However, when I am back on "normal" viewing at 18-25% or when I print, it is hard to tell the difference between the lenses except that the Sigma get me closer (~450mm with Sigma vs. 340mm with Nikon plus teleconverter). In "real world" use though, you might only notice the difference between the lenses if you need crop the picture really close towards 100% (which is never a good idea); if you print really really big; or when you have a very detailed subject (for example, the feathers will be a bit sharper on the Nikon in a close up shot of a bird). Personally, I bought the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 because of the speed of the lens and smaller size. Both are good lenses and server their own purpose.

Tina,
Thanks for checking out the website. The Sigma 150-500mm is a good lens with optical stabilizations that will produce quality pictures. This lens is strongest when there is an adequate amount of light since it is a f5.6-6.3. It should preform just fine at most outdoor events, including college football. It is true that at the farther reaches of the lens 450mm+ (like many lenses) you lose some sharpness and contrast. However, lens consistently does a fine job from 150-450mm. I usually don't shoot with it over 450mm just because I think the results are better. The problem with nikon in this telephoto range is that there are not many options that are as affordable as the Sigma. For example, the Nikon 70-200mm plus a 1.7x Nikon teleconverter (only 340mm reach) will run you about ~$2700. The Nikon 200-400mmf4 will cost you $6000. Nikon does have a 80-400mm lens for $1700 but it is not AF-S autofocus lens and I have read mixed reports able the results with this lens. Now the Sigma 150-500mm is a lens that is right under $1000 new and will give most people very good results. I would not recommend it for a professional wildlife photographer because it is a bit slower that they would need at f5.6-6.3 and not as contrasty/sharp as a Nikon...then again it's not a $6000 lens either. I hope this helps. Feel free to check out eBay right now as I am actually selling my Sigma 150-500mm lens since I am finally upgrading to the Nikon 200-400mm after saving up for a few years. It's ebay item Item number: 260589736775 by seller skew2002. hope you find what you are looking for!

Hi Kyle - Nice photos! Really Nice!!

You mentioned the Sigma in your last entry as not bad but no where near sharp or contrasty as a Nikon. I am guessing that if I am to spend the $$$ I should stick with Nikon - in your opinion? I am looking to get closer to college football games - have a nephew that plays. I also have a few hummingbirds that I would love to get some decent shots of. Thanks for reading!