I'm not a professional; I shoot high school sports as a hobby. I sell the photos, but all profits are donated to our school's athletic program. I prefer shooting baseball, but would like to try some indoor sports like volleyball. Football season is around the corner and I need help on "possibly" purchasing another lens. All games are shot in the evening under not-so-good lighting conditions. I shot the games last year using a nikkor AF-S VR 70-300 f/4.5- 5.6 G IF ED (weight 725g). Needless the say, lighting was atrocious. I made a lot of camera adjustments and did a lot of post-processing to make the photos work (and I only did this because it was my son's senior year). I'd like to purchase a better lens, but money is a BIG factor. The Nikon AF-S VR 70-200mm F2.8 G is costly ($1,625; weight 1470g). The Sigma 70-200 1:2.8 EX DG Apo Macro HSM II is in my price range ($800; weight 1390g). I don't want to purchase the Sigma and regret it. I found a comparison at DP Review. The biggest difference seems to be in image stabilization: Nikon has 3 stops, auto panning detection, and active mode; Sigma has None. Here is the comparison: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0805/08050201nikon70200review.asp. Now that I've explained my desires (and limitations), can someone give me some advice? Will a 70-200 be sufficient to shoot football (and baseball)? Will the weight require use of a monopod? If so, does the "VR" work well with a monopod? Would it be better to invest in the Nikon or will the Sigma get the job done? Or should I stay home and bake cookies?