120-300mm f2.8 and 70-200mm f2.8

Soo after reading some recent reviews and threads I've got my eye on the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 OS lens as a suitable long range lens which can take up to a 2*TC and still deliver a good image quality.

However I've currently already got a 70-200mm f2.8 IS L MII lens and I'm wondering if anyone uses both of these almost similar range zooms in their setup. They do cross over a lot, and I honestly use the wider end of the 70-200mm less than the longer end - so I'm wondering if any have kept hold of both lenses; or if those with the options of using them end up with dropping one over the other because of the overlap.

I'm well aware that this is a very personal situation and that different people will have different expcetations and will shoot differently, but having some idea of others experiences and choices is helpful

I have both. I first bought the 70-200/2.8 II and the Sigma later. Although the IQ of both is very good I would not say that they are competitors. I use the Sigma almost everytime with a monopod because of the weight of the lens. It is my lens for Sports when I need the 2.8 f-stop and cannot get enough "reach" with the 70-200/2.8. The latter is my choice for people on location when I need variability for shooting from various distances.

I am still in a learning process when using the Sigma on the 7D. I recently took some funny familiy pics just for fun with the Sigma and the 5DMk II and they are perfect but I would better not post them.

Cheers,
Martin

I had a Sigma 120-300 non-OS alongside my 70-200 MKII until sometime last year. The issue for me was that the 70-200 MKII with a TC was performing so much better, specifically in AF-servo mode at racetracks, that I wasn't using the Sigma enough, even though it allowed the extra reach, the IQ was close but not up with the 70-200.

So, to get that 400mm-600mm reach I was missing out on, I picked up an older Canon 300mm f/2.8 non-IS, which can be a 420mm or 600mm with the TC's I have. I find those two lenses together are perfect for motorsports.

Now...that being said, the new Sigma 120-300 OS version is VERY tempting, and I've actually been kicking around the idea of selling/trading the Canon 300mm f/2.8 for the new Sigma. The pictures posted so far look great, and going to certain places where I don't need close range, it'd be great, as I could get by with just the 120-300 OS and a couple of TC's in my backpack.

So long story short, I found the overlap wasn't a big deal, especially when you start adding TC's to the mix, as the Sigma had a 1.4 or 2x TC on it most of the time. And it wasn't uncommon for me to carry around both at once, however I generally used the 70-200 MKII with a TC for anything up to 280mm, and then would switch over to the Sigma for the 300-600mm range.

So in my usage, one lens was good from 70-300mm, and the other one from 300-600mm. To me that's not overlap, but it'll really depend on what you plan to shoot.

...that being said, if anyone has a 120-300 OS they might want to trade for a Canon 300 f/2.8 non-IS plus some cash, let me know!!

I would not really count on the 120-300mm OS to offer up IQ like what it offers without the TC, and at least in my experience with the EF 2X Ext. III the AF performance suffers as well - more searching, less able to lock focus.

Basically, the 120-300mm excels as a 120-300mm, not so much as a cheap super telezoom. Guess it's time to save up for the 300-800mm

Here's my opinion.
First of all, I've never owned a super expensive Canon supertele. But I've owned a Sigma 150-500 OS, Canon 100-400L (great, sharp copy), and currently own the Sigma 70-200 OS and 120-300 OS.

Overall, the Sigma 120-300 beats the IQ of the 100-400L for a couple of reasons. If I compare a similar FL, meaning the 100-400L vs. the Sigma +1.4x TC, I have a 168-420mm f/4 lens, which is great to blur the background if I need to. Decent at f/4, good at 4.5 and at 5.6 definitely sharper than my sharp 100-400L was at 5.6.
It's IQ is good at 600mm too, my favorite aperture is f/6.3.
I have shot seagulls in flight with my 7D in AF servo with the 2x TC on my lens and most shots came out good.

Now, the bonus, it is an excellent lens wihtout a TC if I need to use it that way. If I'm very close to wildlife, in a blind, large game etc. I can use my lens as a 2.8 from 120-300mm and no other lens comes close in that range for the price.

Oh, and OS is much better than the IS was in my 100-400L

Like I said I do own the 70-200 OS, but I don't feel any redundancy. I use the two lenses for different purposes, plus the portability of the 70-200 + a 2x TC is also good as a poor man's 140-400mm zoom for lighter nature walkarounds.

The Sigma 120-300 is a ball buster, next to impossible to use without a monopod or tripod (mine is the non-OS, but the weight is very similar). You lose a stop with the 1.4TC on the 70-200 put it is so much easier to hand-hold.

You can shoot the 120-300 os handheld for short periods of time, even with a 2x tc. But it is a lot of weight to lug around if you aren't certain you'll be using it. I find a 70-200 f4 makes an ideal companion as you can always have that with you on lighter trips.

Yes the Sigma 120-300 is heavy but not impossibly so even with a 2X for birds in flight, even as a 9stone weakling in a previous life.

Handheld with a 2X