Which Telephoto lens better for me

My lens lineup still shortage a telephoto lens. My use for this mainly for wildlife during hiking and jungle trekking. I'm thinking of below few option:
1) 200mm f/2.8 L with teleconverter. Cheapest and lightest but no IS, no weather sealing.
2) 70-300mm L. Most Compact and versatile. Reasonable price but only f5.6 at 300mm.
3) 300mm f/4 L. The best telephoto prime I can afford. Lose versatility of zoom but gain one stop faster at 300mm.
4) 100-400mm L. Most versatile but heavy and expensive.
5) 400mm f5.6. Cheap but no IS. I will have FL gap between 101-399mm.

All above 5 lens have very good IQ for me, my concern is which one is more ease of use when in the field.

Either the 70-300L or 100-400L will be the most versatile for wildlife. If you think you'll need the added reach, get the 100-400L. Otherwise, the 70-300L's smaller size and newer optics & IS win over the 100-400L.

Scott M wrote in post #16308929
Either the 70-300L or 100-400L will be the most versatile for wildlife. If you think you'll need the added reach, get the 100-400L. Otherwise, the 70-300L's smaller size and newer optics & IS win over the 100-400L.

absolutely correct. the 70-300L has better IS and is typically sharper wide open than the 100-400 IME. Don't get me wrong, the 100-400 is great but my 70-300L was insanely sharp. Also bear in mind that the 100-400 is f5.6 at 300mm as well.

Scott M wrote in post #16308929
Either the 70-300L or 100-400L will be the most versatile for wildlife. If you think you'll need the added reach, get the 100-400L. Otherwise, the 70-300L's smaller size and newer optics & IS win over the 100-400L.

pdrober2 wrote in post #16309143
absolutely correct. the 70-300L has better IS and is typically sharper wide open than the 100-400 IME. Don't get me wrong, the 100-400 is great but my 70-300L was insanely sharp. Also bear in mind that the 100-400 is f5.6 at 300mm as well.

I also agree. I would reconsider the 100-400 if and when the Mark II version is announced (rumored to be soon, but.....)

tat3406 wrote in post #16308634
My lens lineup still shortage a telephoto lens. My use for this mainly for wildlife during hiking and jungle trekking. I'm thinking of below few option:
1) 200mm f/2.8 L with teleconverter. Cheapest and lightest but no IS, no weather sealing.
2) 70-300mm L. Most Compact and versatile. Reasonable price but only f5.6 at 300mm.
3) 300mm f/4 L. The best telephoto prime I can afford. Lose versatility of zoom but gain one stop faster at 300mm.
4) 100-400mm L. Most versatile but heavy and expensive.
5) 400mm f5.6. Cheap but no IS. I will have FL gap between 101-399mm.

All above 5 lens have very good IQ for me, my concern is which one is more ease of use when in the field.

For wildlife you're gonna want every bit of 400mm but like you mentioned the 400mm zooms are going to heavy and expensive

Stay with the bigger mm models like the 70-300 and you will want IS. Using a teleconverter like a 2X is ok on a tripod, but some big tele work best with a 1 1/4 tele to keep IQ.

I used a 300 f4 is for a year for wildlife and birding. its quite versatile with the close focus distance and the ability to put on a teleconverter and have a 420mm 5.6 with IS. Zooms are versatile but if your at the long end most of the time primes are sharper and faster.

300 f/4 of 400 f/5.6

You aren't going to be close enough to anything for the zooms to make any difference. Primes are lighter, sharper and focus faster.

Bearmann wrote in post #16309161
I also agree. I would reconsider the 100-400 if and when the Mark II version is announced (rumored to be soon, but.....)

A version II of the 100-400L is the longest running rumor in Canon history. If you need a zoom that goes to 400mm, I wouldn't wait. I've owned a 100-400L for close to four years, and the version II was rumored to coming out "soon" back then, too. You cannot take photos with a rumor.

YashicaFX2 wrote in post #16309392
300 f/4 of 400 f/5.6

You aren't going to be close enough to anything for the zooms to make any difference. Primes are lighter, sharper and focus faster.

I disagree. For larger animals, I quite often will be zoomed out to the shorter focal lengths with my 100-400L. Examples:

100mm at Glacier National Park:

My vote goes to the 70-300L. With the latest IS and the ISO performance of the 6D you shouldn't have much of a problem with it at 5.6, and it is the most compact option.

If you need a zoom I vote 100-400 (although I have never tried the 70-300) or if you want a prime 300 f4 with a 1.4x teleconverter. Both are easily to hand hold so the IS is invaluable. I've owned both and really liked them. I'd stay away from the 200 for wildlife, just not enough reach.

Thanks All the reply! I will keep my eye on used market for 70-300, when have the great deal I will get one!

I really love my 70-300 L. I got mine on sale for $100 off list (so, $1499) but there was an odd sale earlier this year in January. The price went down to $1099. That sale didn't last long but it was a heck of a deal.

I haven't shot any of the 70-200 variants but I'm quite happy with the sharpness and color rendition with the 70-300 L... in fact, I'd go so far as to say there is something special about the images produced with it. My 15-85 is no slouch but the L puts it to shame, truth be told. I even like the 70-300 L photographs better than the ones I've been able to take with the 100 L macro lens.