Ok, so I've been lusting..ok needing.. a lens to take some surfing shots with, but the catch is, its on the East coast. Where I'm from, the action never takes place more than 100 yards out in the water, often as close as 40-50. I'm stuck between a few lenses, each with their own benifits. First, the 80-200 AF-S. I don't like the screw AF-D or the push pull, so thats why i'm at the AF-S. VR is too expensive for me as well. The problem with this lens, however, is that its 900 at the very least, and I wonder if such a nice optic should be exposed to the sand and salt like that. Next, Sigma's 100-300 f/4. Its 100mm longer (ok, only about 70, but whatever) than the 80-200, but at a stop shorter. So if i ever wanted to use it for any sports indoors or at night, it might not be the best lens. In addition, sigma QC is always suspect, and it ranks up there in the 900$ range. Finally, Nikon's 70-300 VR. Its just as long as the sigma, and has VR. The issues are that its slow at the long end, and not IF, so sand may eventually cause problems. Though, with VR i wouldn't really need a tripod, which is always nice, as is the 500$ price tag. So which would you pick, if any? Would you look at any other lenses?