Which SIGMA 120-300/2.8? Hard to decide!

gabebalazs wrote in post #16460928
It's not a bad lens, but the OS model is better, and it works better with teleconverters.

If you don't use teleconverters and you know that you don't need OS, you may be better off with the non-OS for half the price but then of course you have to be comfortable with living with 300mm (which is actually less than 300 with near subjects.)

However, you mentioned wildlife shooting and that you had 420mm before, so the old non-OS Sigma won't cut it without teleconverters.

Check out my nature shots portfolio (down in my signature) to see hundreds of shots taken with the OS Sigma and teleconverters.

Don't like at gabebalazs profile, if you do you are going to buy it.

I considering getting the 120-300 VII but I reconsidered and get the 300 2.8 II.


I figured if I'm getting a longer lens it would be at 300mm anyways. The fact that it had better AF and IQ is what me made get the Canon. I have zero issues hand holding it too.

I'm feeling bad now. I'm stressed.
I'm thinking about how many times I will use the Sigma 120-300 OS without tc's. It's like my old and sold Ef 300/4L USM. 8 of 10 times the tc was on. I've never had a zoom. Always primes. Maybe it will affect me in a good way with a zoom cause many times I making shots from the car when I'm driving in the forest? My dream has always been to have a tele with 2.8 together with OS/IS. This lens is my dream lens in many ways but the price is the problem, I think. I'm so confused cause I'm thinking about how many lenses etc of this price. But 90% of my photgraphing is wildlife so it's maybe a good time to spend little more on a good tele lens ?

I've decided to buy Sigma 120-300/2.8 OS it will be the best choice in the end I think.
Which gimbal head should I buy? Manfrotto 393?