Thinking of Changes to my Portfolio of Lenses

Would appreciate any input:

I am thinking of selling my Canon 400mm f/5.6L USM lens (I figure close to $900) as well as selling my Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM lens (I figure that could fetch me around $1,000). With those proceeds I would buy the Canon 100-400mm lens. My thought process is that having both the 70-300mm and the 400mm is probably a bit redundant and I might be better off reducing my load to simply 1 lens. Bear in mind too that I also own the Canon 70-200m f/4 L IS which I love.

That said; I know Canon is just now releasing the newest version of the 100-400mm at $2,100 while the older versions appear to be selling on the secondary in great condition around $1,000 and less. If I buy the newer version of the 100-400mm then "net/net" the entire transaction probably costs me a couple hundred $$ out of pocket. If I choose an older version of the 100-400mm that "net/net" I probably save close to $1,000. The $$$ are not really an issue for me. I don't quite understand the main differences between the new 100-400mm and the old one to help me decide which would make more sense. I can say that the 100-400mm would be used almost entirely for wildlife photography which is one of my favorite subjects.

Any thoughts after all this?

Thank You

The new 100-400 is a twist zoom, rsther than push-pull zoom, so it would feel a bit more familiar like your 70-200. More importsntly the IS will be improved over the old version. The biggedt questio is how much of an opticsl upgrade it is, although it would be surprising if it werent in line with other mkII upgraded lensed. I personally eould trade a 400 prime for a 100-40mk1 based on sharpness but the new lens might be the ticket.

Has sentiment regarding "push-pull" versus "twisting" been leading decidedly one way or the other?

I have a 70-200 2.8 and a 100-400L. The 100-400L is ALWAYS at 400mm. Keep the 400 5.6.

Opinion: I think going to twisty-zoom on the 100-400 is a step backward.

Its mixed. Many old timers with the lens don't like the change. I myself would welcome twist but it wouldn't have been a deal breaker either way. I had push pull zooms in the 80s but am happier with twist. I always have a brief re!earning moment as I don't get the opportunity to use my 100-400 as much as I would like. Moving soon to à place with more wildlife so I'm looking forward to it. One thing noted in reviews is that twist zoom can be operated while using a beanbag in an hide where the push pul requires a lift and reposition that might draw attention. .

Problem with the 400mm prime is it has no IS. Even if you're shooting moving objects I find the IS really helps in tracking moving objects at longer focal lengths.

My advice is to wait and see what the new 100-400 is like. If it follows Canons trend of recent updates it is most likely going to be a big step up in the IQ department over the older lens.

forget push/pull or twist. some folks always have to find a inconsequential feature to latch onto to defend their gear choices, especially when money is involved. you will adapt either way. you will outsmart the lens.

I have the new 100-400 on preorder and I also own the 70-300L. different lenses for different purposes yet either could fill in for the other in a pinch.

ed rader wrote in post #17318750
you will adapt either way. you will outsmart the lens.

Awesome saying. I think the OP has too much redundancy. Either sell the 70-200/4 IS and keep the 70-300 and 400, or sell the 70-300 and 400 and keep the 70-200 and buy a 100-400 II. If I were more into field sports, I'd go the 100-400 route and if more into wildlife, then go the prime route.

ed rader wrote in post #17318750
forget push/pull or twist. some folks always have to find a inconsequential feature to latch onto to defend their gear choices, especially when money is involved. you will adapt either way. you will outsmart the lens.

I have the new 100-400 on preorder and I also own the 70-300L. different lenses for different purposes yet either could fill in for the other in a pinch.

I like the trombone zoom because it makes the lens easier to handle at 400mm. No need to reposition my left hand as the lens doubles in length. If the new one doesn't extend when zooming, my argument goes out the window. The new model also focuses at 3.2 feet; the old one is about 6 feet. The MTF chart looks a lot better at 400mm on the new one, also.

You are correct, sir. If I had $2,300 to spend on a new lens, the 100-400L II would be it. Money most certainly matters.

I would expect the new 100-400L II to have much better IS and better optical quality (IQ) than the first version, which was introduced about 15 years ago. I would hope that its IQ is as good as, or better than, the IQ of the 70-300L. If so, I suggest holding out for the new version. If you believe this website http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=4​&APIComp=1, the 70-300L is better than the original 100-400L at matching focal lengths. And the 70-300L, unlike many telephoto zooms, holds its IQ all the way out to 300mm. (Mine certainly does.) To be worth the money, the new 100-400L should do the same.