Have a d7000 that I use to shoot swimming (my 2 kids, every week), and some events (parties and family wedding soon in august.) I just got rid of my sigma 50-150 2.8 HSM EX because, for the life of me, it was constantly soft, unless I cranked up the f to 5-6 range, which begged the question, "I can just use my outdoor optically stabilized zoom at that point" what's the use of 2.8 when even the point of focus is not sharp. To replace it for an upcoming wedding (not as much swimming) I got a sigma 17-50 2.8 OS. Nice and sharp now, great for small rooms, up close, etc for wedding. But I'm still out my swimming lens. Dark pools, medium and long distances, indoor with weird gym lighting. Would getting a 105mm f/2.8 prime be good for that? (and would a macro be appropriate for sports work at medium distances) i.e.) http://www.adorama.com/SG10528MSG.html OR http://www.adorama.com/NK10528AFVRU.html I'm thinking yes- it'll give me the sharpness as a prime and with the OS OR VR, better than my soft previous sigma above, and for the getting ready shots (not much sports motion yet) , I can slow down the shutter and take advantage of the OS or VR. This would bring me a bit closer- http://www.adorama.com/SG15028OSNKA.html but there are comments that this reduces from 2.8 to f/5.6 when focused 1:1 so it's not a true 2.8 Lastly, there's this http://www.adorama.com/TM70200DNKAF.html Would be a relief to have the in and out of the zoom, but nervous that it would not give me the sharpness I want, being a zoom not a prime, and also not having the optical stab. needed for dark still shots. My budget is in the 600-1000 range, which is where all these lenses are. Thanks for any thoughts!