Can a 100-400 replace these lenses

For flexibility, I'm contemplating trading in my 70-200 f4 non is and 300 f4 is for a 100-400.

Main reason being flexibility for wildlife. Has anyone done this and regretted / not regretted it? I guess I'll lose a bit of IQ and a stop of light, but I figure that the ability to have 100-400mm covered by one lens makes up for that.

Any advice greatly appreciated!

Any chance you can rent or borrow a 100-400 from anyone. I use the 100-400 but have a friend who has your two lens' except the IS v of 70-200. Some benefits to both, I think it will come down to personal preference. IF you carry the 500 with your kit on a regular basis like I do, having the 100-400 will save you some weight.

Thanks, the annoying thing is that I used to have a 100-400 but got rid a few years ago, struggling to remember how good it was.

The 500 is with me all the time, as are the other two if possible!

Last year, I purchased the 100-400mm and sold my 70-200mm f/4 IS. Much as I love the 100-400mm, I missed my 70-200mm. Ended up buying the 70-200mm again. The 100-400 is fantastic for birding and wildlife, love the lens. However, it is heavy and I found myself needing/wanting) something lighter for events and just shooting birds at the feeder and such. So now I have both, they each have a purpose and as long as I am actively shooting, will keep them both.

After buying a 100-400L a few years ago for wildlife, I have not been using my 70-200mm f/4 IS nearly as much. I still find occasional use for it as a smaller, lighter weight telephoto when I do not need the reach of the 100-400L -- plus I use it occasionally for ice hockey, where I need the constant f/4 maximum aperture.

If I needed the cash, I could probably part with the 70-200 and not be hampered very much. However, it is such a good lens, and I am not strapped for money, so I have kept it.

I owned both a 70-200 IS 2.8 and a 300 f/4. What I noticed about the 300 was that it was either too long for what I happened to want to capture or it was a little short. I sold the 300 and got the 100-400 and have not regretted my decision one bit. I sold the 70-200 for other reasons, but am picking up the V2 very soon. i found the 70-200 to be an excellent lens for it's low light and fast af performance. I would say the 100-400 compliments the 70-200 2.8 very well outdoors. as for the f/4 version, well that is a slightly slower lens, but still very sharp.

Since you have the 500, I would grab the 100-400 and sell off the 300L. Buying and selling here, the 100-400 should only cost you a couple hundred over what the 300 will fetch. (US dollars) I'd probably keep the 70-200 at least for a little while to see how much you would still use it.

Thanks for the advice so far, especially the post above as it pretty much answers everything! I'll have to have a think this afternoon.

I have a Σ70-200 OS and a 100-400L. If I were going to change things around, I'd sell the 100-400 and get an EF 400mm f/5.6L. My 100-400 is mostly at 400 anyway.

The long end doesn't worry me, it's the flexibility of running a 100-400 alongside my big lens that I'm after.....if that make sense!

It totally depends on your shooting style and subjects. I find that I use my 100-400L @ 400mm most of the time - often with the Kenko 1.4 extender to get that extra reach. But that is because I shoot birds and surfers when out with a long lens. Sometimes I think I would have been better off with a 400mm prime.....

nellyle wrote in post #16685767
For flexibility, I'm contemplating trading in my 70-200 f4 non is and 300 f4 is for a 100-400.

Main reason being flexibility for wildlife. Has anyone done this and regretted / not regretted it? I guess I'll lose a bit of IQ and a stop of light, but I figure that the ability to have 100-400mm covered by one lens makes up for that.

Any advice greatly appreciated!

Heya,

I'd do it. How often are you using your 70-200 under 100mm? I sure don't. All my telephoto lenses sit at 200mm pretty much. It almost makes you wonder why even get a zoom. But I do sometimes run into a situation where I want to frame up and can't use the end of the barrel, but it's more rare than anything. The 100mm end of the 100-400 is short enough to give you that flexibility. What's 30mm at the end of the day on the short end for wild life? Nothing.

The 300 F4 is a great lens. But you get no flexibility. Great for when it's always far away from you. But, 400mm is a great bit of extra reach. The stop of light difference, to me, isn't big enough of a deal here. I assume you stop down a bit for sharpness anyways.

I'd trade them both in for the 100-400. You get 100mm IS. You get 400mm IS. Think of it like that.

Very best,

Bag contains -- 5dm3 + 7d ... Lens - 100/400, 70/200, 24/105, 28/135 (used less now w 24/105 new) 20/35 ... If I had to sell lenses, the very last one to go - 100/400 ... had it twelve years, it's like a part of my body. And it shot for years and years on a 30D and caught some fine images. So, my vote will always be the 100/400 ... Don't notice any dust or dirt anywhere ... might possibly have some in it, but you can't see it and it doesn't effect the images ... My favorite ...

Having said all that -- the 70-200 f/4 is growing on me pretty quick ... one very sweet lens.

nellyle wrote in post #16685767
For flexibility, I'm contemplating trading in my 70-200 f4 non is and 300 f4 is for a 100-400.

Main reason being flexibility for wildlife. Has anyone done this and regretted / not regretted it? I guess I'll lose a bit of IQ and a stop of light, but I figure that the ability to have 100-400mm covered by one lens makes up for that.

Any advice greatly appreciated!

imo, no. I own the 70-300L and the 100-400L and previously owned the 70-200L f4 IS instead of the 70-300L. I use the 100-400L almost primarily for wildlife. the shorter zooms are smaller, have better IS and are better for tripod work or handheld landscapes.

i'll revisit the question when the 100-400l II is released

I wouldn't be without a 70-200.

The 100-400 should be a good addition to the 500 in the field. (Although I have never used one, usually take my 70-200/1.4x with my 500.)

I too am considering the 100-400, but at some point ya gotta say "enough is enough."