Is there any point?? (70-200mm 2.8 AND 120-300mm 2.8?)

What I want and will 1 day get is the 70-200L f2.8 IS. However is there anypoint in getting the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 aswell?

It would mainly be for motorsport's (Rally's, offroad racing)

Or should I be looking at the 70-200 and then the Sigma 50-500. Too many len's, too many choice's!

The 120-300 is real heavey at 2.6KG,it depends if you need the reach.you could always put a 1.4 tcon on the canon and it would still cost less than the sigma.

Not in the US. The Sigma 50-500 is a little over 1/2 the cost of the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS. Unless you meant costing less than the 120-300 Sigma.

I was refering to the 120-300.

Some say the Sigma 120-300 is THE best zoom lens you can have, at any price. But having both seems like overkill The Sigma is quite popular amongst the sports guyshere, cadwell springs to mind...

I don't think it's overkill do to the size and application difference.. the 120-300mm is a pretty heavy optic and gets used in the same situations that the 300mm f/2.8 primes gets used,. and feilded in a similar way. The 70-200mm on the other hand is an all day hand holdable lens,. both because of weight and IS,..

The 120-300mm seems to get a good amount of use do it's appropriate focal range for motorsports.

I stand corrected CDS, but then again you have a SigMonster too so....

If you need a zoom lens with 300mm reach and an f/2.8 aperture then there's every point in getting the Sigma 120-300mm. If you don't then there's no point. Only you can really tell whether 200mm will be enough or whether you need 300mm...

For the rallys I shoot, 200mm is enough. For track work it isn't.