Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 EX OS

That has been my reasoning as well. I love my 400/5.6, but yearn for something longer with AF that can shoot at 5.6 or wider. The problem for me is that my 400 focuses so fast that I'd hate to give that up. That's why I'm waiting to see the success that others have with the Sigma at 600mm. The 420mm at f/4 alone wouldn't be enough to sell me.

Removed as requested

icassell wrote in post #13433529
That has been my reasoning as well. I love my 400/5.6, but yearn for something longer with AF that can shoot at 5.6 or wider. The problem for me is that my 400 focuses so fast that I'd hate to give that up. That's why I'm waiting to see the success that others have with the Sigma at 600mm. The 420mm at f/4 alone wouldn't be enough to sell me.

I recently sold my 400 5.6L as I got a good deal on a used 300 f/2.8L (non-IS). With TC's, I have a 420mm f/4, or a 600mm f/5.6. And I spent over $1,000 less than the new 120-300 OS, which was what I was originally planning on buying. I was used to the fixed length of the 400mm prime, so basically having 3 different prime lense options (4 if you include the stacked TC's, which actually work ok on my 7D) wasn't a problem for me.

Advantages of the Sigma are obvious, zoom range and OS, although from a pure IQ standpoint, it's hard to argue with the Canon.

I had the old 120-300 non-OS, and while it was solid with or without TC's on still subjects, the AF tracking on moving objects just produced too many inconsistencies for me to use at racetracks, where I use my long range lens the most.

micloi wrote in post #13434946
Not my shot

in which case you shouldn't be posting it. A link to the original is OK.

hollis_f wrote in post #13435079
in which case you shouldn't be posting it. A link to the original is OK.

Do not remember where I got it from. Thought it would be a good one as it shows the sharpness of the lens + TC. Will remove it anyway.

gocolts wrote in post #13435068
I recently sold my 400 5.6L as I got a good deal on a used 300 f/2.8L (non-IS). With TC's, I have a 420mm f/4, or a 600mm f/5.6. And I spent over $1,000 less than the new 120-300 OS, which was what I was originally planning on buying. I was used to the fixed length of the 400mm prime, so basically having 3 different prime lense options (4 if you include the stacked TC's, which actually work ok on my 7D) wasn't a problem for me.

Advantages of the Sigma are obvious, zoom range and OS, although from a pure IQ standpoint, it's hard to argue with the Canon.

I had the old 120-300 non-OS, and while it was solid with or without TC's on still subjects, the AF tracking on moving objects just produced too many inconsistencies for me to use at racetracks, where I use my long range lens the most.

The 300/2.8 with a 2X is another option I've been considering to reach 600mm with good IQ and preserved AF. I still need to see a lot more BIF images from each of those lens combinations before I can decide.

icassell wrote in post #13435206
The 300/2.8 with a 2X is another option I've been considering to reach 600mm with good IQ and preserved AF. I still need to see a lot more BIF images from each of those lens combinations before I can decide.

Do a search within the 300 f/2.8L photo sample thread for 2xTC photo's. That's what I did before I bought the 300 2.8 and I found some great examples there.

The 120-300 OS is so new, it'll probably take awhile before a good population of examples, in different conditions, is available.

gocolts wrote in post #13435744
The 120-300 OS is so new, it'll probably take awhile before a good population of examples, in different conditions, is available.

I'm in no hurry. I've been doing well with my 400/5.5, so will give this one some time (maybe in the interim I'll win powerball and will be able to afford the 500/4)

Another nice one Ashley! I can't wait to go out and use mine... the weather here is pretty awful right now.

More more more bird pics! I love them

piXelatedEmpire wrote in post #13443188
More more more bird pics! I love them

Agreed!

Perhaps it would be more relevant to compare this lens with a 1.4x TC with the 100-400L and Nikon 200-400 (its real competitors for general wildlife) and with a 2x TC against the Sigma 50-500 OS (as a cheap way to reach 600mm), rather than against the 500L with 1.4x TC. After all, it's more a general wildlife and sporting lens rather than a dedicated long birding lens - putting a 2x TC (then stacking it with a 1.4x TC), then complaining that it isn't as sharp as a dedicated long birding lens when used against purpose that way, is pretty nonsensical. That it performs as well as it does when subjected to that sort of torture test on a 7D is itself commendable - after all, at 600mm f/5.6 (with a 2x TC) it does better than the Sigma 50-500 at 500mm f/6.3 (its *native* length), and seems to equal it even with another 1.4x TC stacked on top of it (making 840mm f/8). The Nikon 200-400L is the lens' real competitor - as a general wildlife lens which can also be extended to do birds - not the 500/600/800L. After all, if you stick an 800L on a 7D and start shooting elephants or rhinos with it at typical safari-vehicle distances, you might get a nice, sharp image of a foot...

A few new photos.

This Blue Jay was show through my living room window and cropped. F/4.5, 214mm (but with 1.4x TC attached):

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/29108710@N04/6​407399105/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/29108710@N04/6​407399431/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/29108710@N04/6​407400007/

Here are a few shots and 100% crops without any TC. ALL wide open, f/2.8. Taken with my 7D.

120mm: