Canon 70-300 L IS vs Sigma 50-500 OS

i'm not in the position to buy a tele lens yet
but these two are the same price (where i am)
and would like to hear discussions on the pros and cons of each

edit:
was also thinking that i could replace my "slow" 70-200 f/4 IS with either the two lenses above and getting a 70-200 f/2.8 IS II for the times i need a "fast" zoom

I have not used the 50-500, but I can recommend the 70-300L. It is sharp, has very good overall IQ, is well built and compact.
I had a look at your gear list and it seems it depends a lot on what and how you shoot. You already have fast lenses in that focal range and may not need a faster zoom unless you need flexibility...

sebr wrote in post #12717722
I have not used the 50-500, but I can recommend the 70-300L. It is sharp, has very good overall IQ, is well built and compact.
I had a look at your gear list and it seems it depends a lot on what and how you shoot. You already have fast lenses in that focal range and may not need a faster zoom unless you need flexibility...

exactly. the 70-300 L IS is about as "Slow" as my 70-200 with the benefit of shorter stored length and 100mm more FL. the catch is, i'd lose quite a lot in selling the 70-200 (about 25% loss)

i get the excuse to buy the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II though

you guys think it's stupid to have both the 70-200 f/4 L IS and 70-300 L IS? i mean, is there a situation where having both would be beneficial?

mike cabilangan wrote in post #12755832
exactly. the 70-300 L IS is about as "Slow" as my 70-200 with the benefit of shorter stored length and 100mm more FL. the catch is, i'd lose quite a lot in selling the 70-200 (about 25% loss)

i get the excuse to buy the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II though

you guys think it's stupid to have both the 70-200 f/4 L IS and 70-300 L IS? i mean, is there a situation where having both would be beneficial?

No, I think it would be a waste. The 70-300L is half a stop slower than the 70-200 at 200mm. The lenses are about as sharp as one another and the 70-300 has more reach. I can see a reason to own the 70-300L and the 70-200 F2.8...but not the F4.

It's quite a nice lens.

I am a very happy 70-300L owner but I see little reason to own both 70-200 f4 and 70-300L.