Out With The Old In With The New

Just sold a 70-200mm f2.8L non IS, 50mm f1.8 (already have 50mm f1.4) and a 70-300mm IS, all Canon lenses. Now I'm looking at getting a Canon 70-300mm L or Canon 100-400mm L lens as a replacement to the 70-200mm and 70-300mm lenses. One lens being easier to carry around than two and IS is a must as I just couldn't hold the 70-200 still enough without IS and 70-300 was not sharp (did find out both lenses were out of adjustment but the shop I took them to did have them fixed before selling). Or maybe get the Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 OS with a 1.4 TC. Any suggestions?

70-300 L at 300 will be superior to any 70-200 + 1.4x

If you don't need to go beyond 300mm, I think the 70-300L is a better option. It is a newer design, has weather sealing, latest generation IS, better IQ ( according to reviews), cheaper and lighter.

Rocky Rhode wrote in post #16388287
70-300 L at 300 will be superior to any 70-200 + 1.4x

Knew there would be some loss in IQ using a 1.4TC but how much as I don't use 300mm a lot? I'm a bit more into portraits and landscape.

I have both the 70-300L and the 100-400. If I only was able to keep one, it would be the 70-300L. It is a fantastic travel lens. If I were more into birds and wildlife, then I'd swing to the 100-400. I keep the 100-400 because I go and take photos of the sandhill cranes every year. But if size, weight and really good IS matter, the 70-300L wins for me.

70-300L!

I ever was concerned about slow lenses like that and also about such zoom ranges, but the 70-300L is damn sharp across the range. IS is extremely effective. I shot in dim light at 1/15s and got usable results. I mean it should be 1/300s so thats very useful.

I was thinkin very long about it if i should jump on it, and if i knew earlier i would have gone that way a year ago

Rocky Rhode wrote in post #16388287
70-300 L at 300 will be superior to any 70-200 + 1.4x

And in any event you get slighty more reach..

2 different animals imho.
One is a $1600.00 L lens at F4/5.6
The other is $1250.00 F2.8

Both have image stabilization that work really well. The real question is would the Sigma at 2.8 give you more versatility in lower light, Or do you need the faster lens?

The L is dust and water resistant and has the reach advantage if needed.

Either one are very good lenses, I chose the faster of the two so I could shoot sports and low light situations.

Still on the fence about which to pick up but all the comments are helping me make a decision.

Thanks,
Craig