I know, I know...yet another one of these!
I mostly shoot wideangle/close telephoto, although I've recently been discovering the joys of my new 70-200/2.8 IS. Thing is, whenever I try shooting wildlife/the occasional bird, it comes up a little short. It's a great 'close quarters' sports lens, very useful for landscape, but I'd like a little more reach.
And here comes the dilemma: 100-400L, 300 F/4L (+ 1.4TC), or 400 F/5.6.
What's essential to me is that the glass be relatively portable. I do alot of my best photography on vacation, and I don't want/can't always take along every bit of glass; I've even pondered getting an F4 70-200 for travel because of the bulk of the 2.8.
What I like about the 100-400 is the versatility, and the fact it's a perfect partner to the 24-105 for a relatively light, compact 2-zoom set for travelling (with a few fast primes in the bag as well). What I don't like is, well, it looks a bit crazy-huge at 400mm, and I wonder about the IQ relative to the primes.
Re: primes, I'm drawn to the 300F4 IS because I shoot almost everything handheld (again, it's the portability thing), it's got a built-in hood (compact!), closer focus than the 400. What 'worries' me is the fact I'd need three bits of glass (24-105, 70-200 and 300+1.4TC or the 400), ie extra weight and bulk, with a lot of potential overlap area (70-200 with TC is damn close to 300 at the same F-stop) for what's likely a minimal quality gain in real-world terms.
I'll be trying out at 100-400 at a store tomorrow, and a second-hand 300 F/4L IS on Friday, and I'll spend some time staring at the pics and mulling it over before biting the bullet, but I appreciate any insights folks care to provide