Sigma 120-300 "S" vs 70-200 IS II + 300L F4 IS?

Really need to add a longer lens to my gear for doing wildlife shots cause my 70-200 with 1.4x just isn't enough for a lot of situations so I've been looking at two options, The first being a sigma 120-300 F2.8 "S" for its zoom flexibility and having F2.8 @ 300mm but, coming at a very large size and weight (6.5lbs for the non "S" version). The other option would be to upgrade my 70-200 to the F2.8 IS II to still give me a f2.8 zoom for night racing photos and to also add a 300L F4 IS that when paired with the 1.4x would give me a 450mm F5.6 IS for wildlife. Both of the above options cost right at $3600 but, Due to the weight of the sigma I'd keep my 70-200 F4 IS for times when I don't need F2.8 vs with the second option I'd sell my F4 version. Which option would you choose?

Have you considered the non S version of the 120-300? (still retaining OS) That knocks off about $1000 off your bottom line and as I understand optically is no different than the new S model.

Last year, I sold my "old" Sigma 120-300 OS, and instead used a 70-200 2.8 MKII and 400mm 5.6L for racetrack stuff. Reason being was that I wanted something wider than 120mm at times, and if I had to start carrying 2 lenses instead of just the 120-300 OS, then to me it defeated the purpose of having it in the first place, and putting up with the corresponding weight. The 70-200 2.8 worked great at Road Atlanta for the 10 hour race.

Granted- since then I've replaced my 400 5.6L for a 400mm DO that I got a great deal on, as I was missing the ability to get between 500-600mm @ f/5.6 on my 7D.

I'm not sure if I'd go with the 300mm f/ along with the 70-200 MKII, simply because the zoom does so good with TC's, you might find adding a TC to the 300 f/4 isn't much different than using the 70-200 MKII with a good 2xTC.

I agree with the above too- a "v1" of the 120-300 OS would be a lot cheaper, and enable you to possibly sell the 70-200 f/4 and buy both the 70-200 2.8 MKII and the Sigma for a net difference of the same target amount of $3,600. Just food for thought.

I have and its an option but if I sold my 70-200 F4 IS that'd roughly save me like $700 so with the non "S" version it be about a $300 difference between the two. I just can't seem to decide which is the better option.

Go for 400mm, go for the 400mm f/5.6L

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #16024916
Go for 400mm, go for the 400mm f/5.6L

This.

70-200mm f2.8 IS II and 400mm f5.6 I dont think I have seen sigma touch it so far. I am hoping it does as I need that zoom for sports.