Should I sell my 300 f4L is and 70-200 f4L and buy a 70-200 f2.8 is II?

I've been thinking lately of selling my 70-200 f4L non is and my 300mm f4L is, and picking up the 70-200mm f2.8 is II. My current lineup is 17-40mm f4L, 70-200mm f4L non is, 300mm f4L is, 400mm f5.6L

Having both my 7D and my 6D, I find that now my least used lens is the 300mm f4L is. I typically only use it for it's Macro ability for close ups of flowers or insects or whatever. And when I pack my camera bag it usually gets left at home. I do use the 70-200 f4L quite a bit though.

I know that the new 70-200 f2.8 IS II performs very well with the 1.4x extender which I also have. So my thoughts were to sell both those lenses and consolidate it to one 70-200mm f2.8 is II and use the 1.4x TC if I ever needed the 200-300mm range. I know I will lose 20mm on the long end but how will it perform compared to the 300mm f4L IS? Is this a good Idea or should I just keep my current setup?

The view you get using 300 on 6D can be gotten (with different compression) by 70-200 on 7D, similarly 300 on 7D can be a little like 400 on 6D... I say sell it, get the 70-200 you desire, and pop on the 1.4x if you really need.

Sounds like a good idea.

Actually, 70-200mm IS with 1.4 extender will be a superior combination to 300mm f4, because you get IS lens.
Only downside is loss in optical quality, but I can imagine you can take sharper pictures, if you have IS.

Anthon wrote in post #15482549
Sounds like a good idea.

Actually, 70-200mm IS with 1.4 extender will be a superior combination to 300mm f4, because you get IS lens.
Only downside is loss in optical quality, but I can imagine you can take sharper pictures, if you have IS.

My 300mm f4L IS does have IS but I do know it's the older IS system so only 2 stops of IS.

Sounds like a good plan and the 70-200/2.8 IS II is an awesome lens. IQ is still very good with the 1.4x TC.

Considering your ratio of use of your two current lenses, I'd swap them out for sure.

I've considered this many times ( i own the 300/4L IS and 70-200/4L IS), but i would still have to pay money out of my pocket. The weight of the 2.8 is another concern.

If you're really not using the 300 much anymore, I'd say go for it. The MkII is REALLY a nice lens, that I don't get to shoot much, but take real pleasure in when I do; when/if I move up to a full frame body, it will likely replace the 24-105 as my general use lens.

1Tanker wrote in post #15483174
I've considered this many times ( i own the 300/4L IS and 70-200/4L IS), but i would still have to pay money out of my pocket. The weight of the 2.8 is another concern.

Yeah I realized I will have to pay out of pocket still but not nearly as much as if I didn't sell these two As for the weight, I figured it's still lighter than both the other lenses combined or at least the same weight.