Dilemma--To Buy or Not to Buy....

I currently own a Canon 70-300mm L lens which I use mainly to photograph wildlife (am a frequent traveler to Costa Rica). Generally I have been very happy with the lens. I have an opportunity to buy a Sigma 120-400mm (Canon mount) for what seems like an excellent price: $600 and it's less than 2 years old. I don't absolutely need to have it but seems like the deal is too good to pass up and I do plan to taking more trips to Costa Rica as well as Brasil and Amazonia. So my question is: is this overkill, having both the Canon 70-300mm L AND the Sigma 120-400mm or can there be justification for owning both? Thank You.

it's probably overkill...although i'd think you'd come up short quite often with only 300mm...so something longer than that would be good...maybe a 400L?

You're not gonna like the IQ compared to the 70-300, but the extra reach might be beneficial. I would concur with the 400 5.6 instead.

I should have also mentioned that I also own a Canon 70-200mm f/4 L IS lens. Based on both replies thus far maybe the better thing to do is to forego the Sigma and sell the Canon 70-300mm L for the Canon 400mm L.

Bogino wrote in post #14757337
I should have also mentioned that I also own a Canon 70-200mm f/4 L IS lens. Based on both replies thus far maybe the better thing to do is to forego the Sigma and sell the Canon 70-300mm L for the Canon 400mm L.

That's what I'd do.

Keep in mind doing that, as wonderful as the IQ is of the 400mm L prime, you use the ability to zoom, if that's something important to you.

Forget the zoom... get the 400mm 5.6 prime!