Getting 100-400mm mkII should I keep my 70-200 2.8 IS MKii What are your thoughts?

Camera's :40D, 7DMKii, 5Dmkiii

I have Rokinon 14mm 2.8,10-18mm stm, 16-35 f4 IS, 24-105mm, 40mm 2.8 pancake, 100mm 2.8IS, 70-200 IS MKii , 100-400mm mkii(on order) and Tamron 150-600mm and 1.4xIII.

Probably getting rid of: Tamron-150-600 and 70-200 2.8 since I shoot mostly at extreme ends (Landscape and wildlife)
and 24-105, and 10-18 to help fund 24-70 mkii.

Thoughts?

I have a 24-70 and a 70-200; I hope to add a 100-400 eventually, but I would not be able to shoot about half of the sports/action work I get without the 70-200. So I couldn't skip any FL range, really; those two lenses would serve in a pinch for all my work. But if you need the extreme range, you won't find a better all-round lens than the 100-400.

Keep the 70-200 for the 2.8 aperture unless you're always on a tripod or shooting during the daytime.

I have both and wouldn't dream of selling either. To me they both do different jobs so they compliment each other.
I mainly use the 70-200 on my 5D and the 100-400 on the 70D.
I will however be selling my 70-200 f4 IS. Although it's light and smaller, it's $$$ I could use somewhere else

In my mind their uses are so different I would not sell either. I have both the 70-200 2.8 II and the 70-300L and they only reason I would sell the 70-300L would be to fund the 100-400II.

If you used your 70-200 mkII mostly with TC's, then I can see why you'd consider not needing it with the 100-400 II.

I was in this position, but still needed to have a 70-200 2.8 for occasional use, so I sold my 70-200 MKII and picked up a used 70-200 2.8 non-IS, netting about $1,000 in the trade.

Heya,

If you don't use your 70-200 for wildlife or landscape, and that's what you're shooting, then sell it.

Very best,

If you use the 70-200 for landscapes then it could come in use. If not, then get rid of it.

As you state you shoot at the extremes, I would go a different route and cancel the 100-400, sell the 70-200 and buy a used 500/4. A 7D2 plus a 500 will be a killer combo, and you'll have the 14, 24-105 as your landscape and walkaround lens.

The way I see it is that they are very different tools for very different jobs. Your question would be kind of like a carpenter asking, "Now that I bought a really good hammer, should I keep my saw, or sell it?"

Most of the times I am using my 100-400, a 70-200mm would be useless. An most of the times I have used a 70-200mm, a 100-400mm would have been completely useless.

rushfan21122 wrote in post #17524798
Camera's :40D, 7DMKii, 5Dmkiii

I have Rokinon 14mm 2.8,10-18mm stm, 16-35 f4 IS, 24-105mm, 40mm 2.8 pancake, 100mm 2.8IS, 70-200 IS MKii , 100-400mm mkii(on order) and Tamron 150-600mm and 1.4xIII.

Probably getting rid of: Tamron-150-600 and 70-200 2.8 since I shoot mostly at extreme ends (Landscape and wildlife)
and 24-105, and 10-18 to help fund 24-70 mkii.

Thoughts?

Fan.
Your camera body list is similar to my cameras as well. Still have my old trusty 40D in the closet. Since 2009 Christmas until Christmas of 2013, my trusty pair of 7D's were work horses. From 2013, a pair of 5D Mark III's have really been working hard like the 7D's. No matter which body over the years, the 70-200 range has been my go to lens. F/4 L IS and the f/2.8 L IS Mark II. The best lens hands down in my arsenal.
Shooting HS or College baseball, College Football and even some BIF, this lens will allow me the f/2.8 advantage with great results while closer to the action. When more reach needed, I can add the 1.4 Extender or go for my old trusty Push-Pull 100-400. The new Mark II is even nicer Image wise.
For me I would ADD the new 100-400 Mark II. Taking away your strong base leads to more Gaps. Why rob Peter to pay Paul.

I have the 100-400L II and he 70-300L. Im keeping the 70-300L because it's smaller and I have specific uses for it. only you can answer your question.