How many have both 70-200 and 100-400

Talley wrote in post #14759545
hows the AF speed?

FedEx delivers my 70-200 today. I'll let you know later.

I have both and find they both have their place and use. I started with a 7D and was seriously looking at selling the 100-400 after purchasing the 70-200 but now I'm very happy I didn't. When I switched to a 5D III the 70-200 suddenly became very short when I was using it to shoot on a professional baseball field. I'm glad I still have both. I just finished up a cruise to Alaska and went back through my pics and would have never guessed that more than 60% of the distance shots (>100mm) were with the 100-400. Love them both and wouldn't sell either of them.

I have both on a 5D. I got the 100-400 first since it picked up where the 24-105 left off. The weight and long minimum focal length kept me from using it as much as I'd wanted to so I added a 70-200 f/4. I like the relatively light weight and small size. The 100-400 is now my reach lens when I know I'll be shooting something small like a bird or a plane in flight. The 70-200 is more of an outdoor event lens, like shooting kids running around in the back yard. I never carry both.

I have three and can't decide which I don't need....!

100-400 L
70-200 f2.8 IS
70-200 f4 IS

Like so many others, I have both. My 70-200F4 IS is extremely sharp, but my least used lens. It is never long enough for what I shoot when reach is needed. So the 24-105 and 1-4 are my most used lenses. However, when I do use the 70-200, the pics are super sharp and I look for reasons and circumstances to put it to good use.

Cheers, Steve

I had a Sigma 70-200 and really liked it, but once I obtained the 100-400 I found that I didn't really use it much. I had other lenses covering the 70-100 range, so I sold it and have not really missed it. YMMV.

I use a 70-200f2.8 IS with a 2x teleconverter

much lighter to carry around than 2 big lenses

leemik wrote in post #14777533
I use a 70-200f2.8 IS with a 2x teleconverter

much lighter to carry around than 2 big lenses

True, but when you cannot change lenses, carrying two cameras with both lenses make sense

I have both the 70-200 f/2.8L Mk II and the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS. I use the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS on my 7D and the 70-200 f/2.8L Mk II on my 1D MKII N and love them both. I use the 100-400 for walks around the zoo and the botanical garden, but if I need razor sharp or low light shots the 70-200 is the gun I go to.

I have their love child, the 70-300L

I don't own the 100-400L but I love my 70-200. I've rented the 100-400 several times for events I know I'd use it but you cannot substitute that F2.8 if you use it. Obviously if you're not an indoor/lowlight shooting person then you may not find any use for it. I use the 100-400L on my ship a lot for INTEL but generally I use my 70-200 for walking around topside and needed zoom. The F4 or lower adds a nice look to the photos the 100-400 doesn't offer.

I use the 70-200 f2.8 (non-IS) for one daughter's dance recitals and volleyball games in low light and the 100-400 for my other daughter's softball games. I love the push-pull zoom on the 100-400 and I lighten the load slightly by removing the tripod ring. For me, this combo works really well.

For sports, I would use my 100-400 most of the time when the light was good and the 70-200 when during cloudy days or dusk games. Loved the reach of the 100-400, but hated the slow focusing. For this reason, I just bought a 300mm f/2.8 IS yesterday. If this works well for me, I'm going to sell the 100-400. If canon comes up with a new version of the 100-400, I'll be the first one in line to buy it!

The 100-400L is "sharp enough".

I cant sell it just yet but its the least sharp lens I own. I dont mind because I know its old tech but my only alternative in the canon line unless I go primes.

In majority of cases my 70-200 suites my needs. I just purchased a 100-400 because I wanted it for a vacation trip. Otherwise I never would really need this lens.

I had both but sold the 100-400 for a 400 prime.