Hi,Looking to economise for a while, since the new lens budget is blown (85/1.4 and 35/1.4, which are both fabulous).  I want a lens that gets me to a good 200mm with enough focusing speed for moving dogs and children.  My biggest regret in moving from Minolta film to Nikon digital is that I miss the Minolta 200mm f2.8 G HS lens!  Ultimately, I think this means getting a 70-200mm f4VR or even an f2.8VR but (a) budget constraints mean that is not possible and (b) the latter weighs twice as much as my old Minolta!Alternatives that have come up browsing secondhand options include these:Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 DC HSM (not the later OS or Macro versions or the earlier one without HSM)Tokina 80-200mm f2.8 ATX ProNikon 80-200mm f2.8 AF (older one-touch desgin)Nikon 70-300mm f4/5.6 VRThe Sigma is a bight ligher than the Nikon equivalents and has some good reviews online, though with a KFD of 1.8m.  I don't know much about the Tokina but their ATX Pro line is generally well-regarded; I don't know if this is a film era lens, whereas the Sigma is DC.  The older Nikon 80-200mm is likely to be much slower to focus, I assume, and the film-day coatings may be an issue.  The Nikon 70-300mm is the left field candidate, since it reduces my maximum aperture, but gives me a modern Nikon lens, with fast(ish) focus and extra reach plus VR.Prices are aroundd £300-£400 for these secondhand from good dealers, so any suggestions in that range gratefully received.ThanksChazphoto

As you are probably going to hand hold this lens, VR would seem to be a real plus. The nikon 70-300vr can be had for $300 and is fast enough under good light.

Well, I'd consider a used 180mm f2.8, despite the non-VR factor.

No love for the f2.8s without VR?  I have no idea whether I can handhold 1.3 to 1.5kg of lens at 200mm and above 1/250th having not done so before.  The nearest my experience gets is with the 800g of the Minolta 200/2.8.  I note on the thread about the 300mm f4 not having VR that plenty of people manage the weight of that lens.The 70-200mm f4 would be perfect, the more I read about it, but not just now.  I was hoping that the Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 would get some praise on here, but may have to try it myself and report.ThanksChazphoto

Save some cash and get the Tamron 70-300 vc. I use mine for soccer, lacrosse, skating, etc. with good results. Check my pics linked below. -- www.flickr.com/photos/brev00

I find the lenses you list to cover different usages.For me, an 80-200 or 70-200 F2.8 is a perfect lens for outdoor people activities, some sports, and events.   Much more so on FX than DX, because for me 70/80 is not wide enough on DX.But these lenses are too short for wildlife, and a bit big for general purpose use.The 70-300 lenses (of which I'd say the Nikon is probably the best, but if not, would be very close in both IQ and price) is more of a general purpose lens.   Light, easy to travel with, has (barely) enough reach for wildlife.   Not really fast enough for low-light activity, though high ISO capability now mitigates that somewhat.   But it's simply not capable of giving you the type of subject isolation that you can get from F2.8-F4.0.    It will have a different look to it.   Which may or may not matter to you if you typically shoot at F5.6-8.0.Of the lenses, the only one I have personal experience with is the Nikon 80-200 (a 1995 model).   I had no problem shooting it handheld without VR.   My biggest complaint was that it was a bit soft wide open, which is pretty much what I see with all the AF/AF-D lenses on a D800.

I have the Sigma 70-200 APO DG Macro HSM 2.8 EX lens.  No VR. It is heavy but very good lens.    See photo below - taken in manual mode, f/16, 1/160s panning at 160mm, ISO 200 using a D5000.  I like this lens.

Thanks to all of you for your thoughts and suggestions, particularly the comments about the different uses of the lenses.Yes, the 70-300mm would be a different type of lens and a step or two further away from my Minolta reference experience.  The only thing it has going for it is the lower weight and the VR, but the aperture does worry me, since I have in the past mostly shot at wider than f5.6.Given the concerns about older glass on modern digital high-res cameras, it sounds as though the Sigma will be the best bet.  A couple of online reviews rate it for sharpness and good AF speed, though one test in Canon mount had some serious astigmatism on a second test example.  It will have to do until I can stretch to the Nikon 70-200/4 which seems outstanding and (particularly given the focus breathing on the f2.8) capable of giving great separation from the background.CheersChazphoto

I'm a big fan of the 80-200 having owned one and shot thousands of sports and portrait shots with it.  I was satisfied with it's sharpness wide open.  Here's just a couple wide open.  And one for bokeh.A fine lens in my opinion, especially for the money.

I'm a big fan of the 80-200 having owned one and shot thousands of sports and portrait shots with it.  I was satisfied with it's sharpness wide open.  Here's just a couple wide open.  And one for bokeh.A fine lens in my opinion, especially for the money.I was in a similar boat, switched from Canon to Nikon, purchased the D800, and needed to find some quality glass to go with it.I ended up buying several AF D lenses (film) and have been very pleased with the results. This included the 80-200 f/2.8 AF D, which I've used for football, baseball and indoor volleyball. I am not able post samples at the moment, but this lens has the ability to produce stellar results. It won't focus as fast as the AFS 70-200, but it is does the job. My only complaint is that it is a little soft at 200mm. Other than that, results are razor sharp, good colors and great contrast.I was going to purchase new, but found a slightly used one on EBay. And, remember, Nikon lenses will hold their value better if you decide to upgrade down the line. Hope this helps.

Lightweight - great image quality (mine is as good or better than my 70-200 f/2.8 VR II) and can be had for around $500. Pair it up with an equally good 85 f/1.8g (used around $350-400 - new for $500) and covers your 80-200 range very well.