How many have both 70-200 and 100-400

I came close to having the 70-200 F4 IS and the 100-400. Instead, I decided to pick up a used 70-200 f2.8 IS II and a refurbished 2.0X III (when Canon had the 20% discount). I know this combo won't be as sharp at 400mm as having the 100-400, but I get a much more useful 70-200 and I have the option to use it at 140-400 in a pinch.

Roroco wrote in post #14759249
I came close to having the 70-200 F4 IS and the 100-400. Instead, I decided to pick up a used 70-200 f2.8 IS II and a refurbished 2.0X III (when Canon had the 20% discount). I know this combo won't be as sharp at 400mm as having the 100-400, but I get a much more useful 70-200 and I have the option to use it at 140-400 in a pinch.

hows the AF speed?

modchild wrote in post #14758575
I've just ordered a 70-200 2.8 IS L MkII today but I also have and intend to keep a Sigma 120-400 OS and a Sigma 150-500 OS, mainly for aviation shots on my 2 bodies. I can't wait to get my new MkII though.

Having both a 100-400 and a 70-200, I get. Having both a 120-400 and a 150-500 I don't.

I have both. The 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II is always in my bag. The 100-400 comes out as needed but does get used for sports, etc. would really like to switch it out for a 300mm f/2.8L with IS and use it with a 1.4x to get to a 420mm @ f/4 or a 2x and get a 600mm @ f/5.6!

I have a 70-200 mk11 and the 100-400 which I used for birding until I bought a 300 F2.8 is & mk111 TC's (the 300 + 1.4 is brilliant)
the 70-200 gets plenty of use as does the prime & TC's
the 100-400 has been relegated to the cupboard,
I'm not going to sell it tho, its too good a copy & I can convince myself there's times where I'd still need it

Have both, myself. The 100-400 is my workhorse, but sometimes the 70-200 is just the tool for the job. Wouldn't give either one up.

I'm sure the answer is out there somewhere, but seeing as you guys are currently on topic I may as well ask again...

What is the IQ difference between the 100-400 and the 70-200 + 2x extender (assuming the Canon mk3 TC)? Because if the TC option has acceptable IQ, then it's a lot cheaper than having two lenses!

I know Roroco mentioned 400mm wouldn't be as sharp, but is the difference significant?

Roroco wrote in post #14759249
I came close to having the 70-200 F4 IS and the 100-400. Instead, I decided to pick up a used 70-200 f2.8 IS II and a refurbished 2.0X III (when Canon had the 20% discount). I know this combo won't be as sharp at 400mm as having the 100-400, but I get a much more useful 70-200 and I have the option to use it at 140-400 in a pinch.

chrismarriott66 wrote in post #14760821
I'm sure the answer is out there somewhere, but seeing as you guys are currently on topic I may as well ask again...

What is the IQ difference between the 100-400 and the 70-200 + 2x extender (assuming the Canon mk3 TC)? Because if the TC option has acceptable IQ, then it's a lot cheaper than having two lenses!

Sadly, there's no, solid, answer for that question. How much of an effect the TC has on image quality depends entirely on your gear and how the tolerances therein stack up.

I found that, with MY gear, the 70-200 + TC was completely craptastic compared to the 100-400; whereas, others here have gotten terrific results out of it.

Snydremark wrote in post #14760831
Sadly, there's no, solid, answer for that question. How much of an effect the TC has on image quality depends entirely on your gear and how the tolerances therein stack up.

I found that, with MY gear, the 70-200 + TC was completely craptastic compared to the 100-400; whereas, others here have gotten terrific results out of it.

Right okay I guess it is another variable being introduced whereas you don't have to worry about that with the single lens... I suppose you could have them calibrated, but it's all extra money that could be put towards the 100-400.

chrismarriott66 wrote in post #14760834
Right okay I guess it is another variable being introduced whereas you don't have to worry about that with the single lens... I suppose you could have them calibrated, but it's all extra money that could be put towards the 100-400.

In my case, I already had the 100-400; so it just wasn't worth the hassle to try and muck with getting anything calibrated. Plus, if I were shooting heavily, messing with a third piece in the mix would just be a hassle (for me, anyway).

My 70-200 f/2.8 L II is used a lot. But the 100-400 comes into its own for motorsport. It may not come out to play every day, but when its needed nothing else will do the job.

I admit I've not read through the thread, but "getting it calibrated" and "extra money" are odd comments when Canons latest bodies all seem to offer micro adjustment that the user can manage if careful.

Lowner wrote in post #14761039
I admit I've not read through the thread, but "getting it calibrated" and "extra money" are odd comments when Canons latest bodies all seem to offer micro adjustment that the user can manage if careful.

It was in reference to using the 70-200 with a TC in comparison to the 100-400 to save having money tied up in additional lenses... some people are saying they buy a 100-400 each year just for specific events and then sell them again.

I have and use both. The 70-200 I can use as a walk around lens but I find the 100-400 too big and bulky for that. Usually I use the 100-400 for bird/animal/wildlife/f​lower pictures where I am stationary.

I have both and find they both have their place and use. Wouldn't sell either of them.

I have both, use the 100-400 for shooting airshows and the moon/sun. In many instances carry both 70-200 on the 5D and 100-700 on the 7D. In concerts, I do it the other way for high iso capability on the 5D with the F5.6 and F2.8 on the 7D