Hi Rolly1.. Yes, and this is why I normally buy my camera gear from our local Photography shop.. As you know we can buy Grey Market, which is not always apparent, since the shop pose as being Australian when in fact they are from Hong Kong or China.. Photo Continental seem to have a good price and are very close to where we live.. They have been around for years.. http://www.photocontinental.com.au/prod ... 8002596241
I have done more research on this lens and to be honest, I cannot find a bad report about it... And NO, I am not affiliated with Sigma, for those who might ask...
As with most comparisons which can be like Chalk and Cheese, this one is too but very interesting that a lens costing very much more $$$ has been put into the same boat as with the Nikon new 80-400mm and it still came out very well..http://lenshero.com/comparison/Sigma-50 ... .5-5.6D-ED
The 80-400mm is a very nice lens but for me, having no AF-S is a big down side.. But apart from that its a great lens if you can afford to buy it.. But way over priced if you ask me... http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/80400vr.htm
I went off the Nikon Telephoto AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4D ED-IF Autofocus, which I thought was a great lens, but as Andrew pointed out.. It has no VR... The 80-400 has VR but no AF.. To be honest, Nikon are a pain.. There is always something they miss out.. I would have thought that VR was essential for a long zoom lens...
Actually, the older version of the 80-400 looks awesome, but no AF but had VR, http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/80400vr.htm
and then they made a newer version with AF but no VR.. How stupid is that... and they also whacked the price up to make it very poor value for money.. http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/80-400mm.htm
This has been stated in many reviews.. The original 80-400mm had much better ratings for value for money..