after two tries with Sigma 120-300 os I need a canon 300 or 400 which one?

I tried 2 copies of the sigma 120-300 os and both were an utter disappointment. THe first one i could not get to focus well even with ma. The second copy had a huge variation from 120-300. at 120 it was spot on and then at 300 it req +20 (probably more since that was the max) to get it in focus, but then the 120 was screwy.

So now the question is which prime to get. I want IS since it will be handheld most of the time, mostly for wildlife and some birding. I was thinking of the 400 DO since it is an f/4 and fairly light at least lighter than the 120-300. However, I have heard not the best reviews on the 400 DO. To be honest, I want a 300 2.8 IS I and then just throw on a 1.4 when needed, but alas I can't find any new.

What do you with long lenses recommend?

only two? you didn't really give them a chance.

i wouldn't get the 400 DO, it doesn't get good reports like you noted. I've got the 300 f4, and am looking at a 400. the 300 is a very sharp lens.

rick_reno wrote in post #13858871
only two? you didn't really give them a chance.

i wouldn't get the 400 DO, it doesn't get good reports like you noted. I've got the 300 f4, and am looking at a 400. the 300 is a very sharp lens.

I know really. Which 400 are you looking at?

That's sad to hear that the Sigma lottery has been extended to the 120-300 OS. I had been a big fan of Sigma lenses till this past year but with all the focus issues I have had with my last 4 Sigma lens purchases and all the money I have spent on shipping them in for service I have given up. I have been selling off all my Sigmas and buying back L lenses.

I also waited too long to pick up a new 300L f2.8 IS V1 lens but I was able to find a very nice used one a few months back. I wanted something to use for both portraiture and wildlife that would partially satisfy my lust for the 200L f2 IS as well as compliment my 100-400L while out chasing critters. For wildlife I was needing a 600mm lens but I have been a bit disappointed in using the 300L with a 2X TC. Until I get that rectified it is pretty much useless to me for wildlife as my 100-400L does everything I need it to do up to 400mm which is one of the reasons the 400 DO IS lens never appealed to me.

How about Canon 500mm f4? If you can find one that is!

minh2pac wrote in post #13859415
How about Canon 500mm f4? If you can find one that is!

Too heavy. That was the main reason I was thinking about the 400 do. It is 2 lbs lighter than the siggy. Maybe I will just go back to the 100-400. I dunno. I really wanted the sigma to work.

I've just changed from a Sigma 150-500 to the 120-300 and both are great lenses, the only downside of the new one is the weight, but I guess that's the price you pay for f2.8. Works well with a 2X and no focus problems with mine.

No matter how many bad copies someone gets someone else always tries to swing them back with their brilliant copy. I have postponed getting a 120-300 OS based on both mixed reviews and personal experience with Sigma. I have had Sigma lenses and never been happy, not with one of them.

Personally I would get yourself a used 300 2.8 IS, if you are using mostly 400mm then that is the lens....if you use mostly 600mm then think about the 500f4 more. The 400 DO has its fans too but also gets very mixed reviews.

I also failed the sigma lottery with this 120-300... Too bad. I just went back to canon 70-200 and its great!

bfinta wrote in post #13861684
I also failed the sigma lottery with this 120-300... Too bad. I just went back to canon 70-200 and its great!

Yeah I just ordered a 100-400 last night. I also ordered a 100L and some studio lights so I still have the warm fuzzy feeling. Funny things is I got all three of Hess and it was only 200 more than than the siggy and with mr rebates I will get 100 back too. Oh well. As good as sigma's prices are I think that I will stay with canon.

skater911 wrote in post #13859141
I know really. Which 400 are you looking at?

I like the f/4 400mm.

rick_reno wrote in post #13862017
I like the f/4 400mm.

"i wouldn't get the 400 DO, it doesn't get good reports like you noted" ??? Dont wish to be putting on ya but the 400 DO is the only 400 f4 Canon make.

I have no experience with the 400 f4 DO

I have used the rest of canons "big whites"
The 300 f2.8 is a great lens, light enough to handhold and shoot all day (4ish kg + body) sharp as a tack, and focuses quickly.
My go to lens for rallying

The 400 f2.8 is just as sharp, and focuses just as quickly, but is a pain to lug around, at double the weight. Probably the most regularly used long lens.

The 500 f4 is thinner and a smidge longer than the 400, and a bit lighter, i can and have handheld it (for maybe 30 frames or so over 10 mins), but it really needs a monopod.
I have only used one copy of this lens, and it seems to have a magic "don't suck" filter in it somewhere - my go to daylight football lens.

The 600 f4 is just big, bulky and heavy.
Still sharp, but I can't really comment on AF speed as I only use it for Cricket, which is relatively static.


If you are buying a big canon prime, figure out which focal length you most need first.
There is no point buying a 500 if you need a 300, or a 300 if you need a 600.
You will take an AF speed hit when you use Teleconverters, and a slight IQ hit too.

Check out the following:
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=514846
Thinking of getting this one myself.

I must have won the lottery then...my Sigma 120-300 OS is great!

I'd find a used 300 2.8 IS in mint condition, and call it a day.