Crazy to keep the 70-300L with the 100-400L?

I have had a 70-200 F2.8L II lens for a few years now, and it's obviously awesome. But, as everyone knows it can be pretty heavy to carry around and takes up a lot of room in a camera bag.

I recently purchased the 70-300 F4-5.6L lens. I have to say, it's been great so far, and I do like it's fairly small and light (comparatively). In my bag, I have enough room with it to have all of my other lenses.

Another thing I've done is ordered the 100-400L II, to replace a 400L F5.6 prime lens. I have a 1.4X III (which doesn't work on the 70-300, but does on the 100-400), so on my 5D3 I can reach 560mm.

Now I'm second guessing having 3 lenses with so much overlapping focal length. I could still return the 70-300 (it's in the return period)... but then that defeats my original intent of having a portable telephoto. And so far, the results with the 70-300 have been quite good.

Does anyone else have these 3 telephotos? Is it too much redundancy? Obviously, this is a lot of $$$ in lenses. Basically I need someone to tell me it isn't nuts

I am sure that once you start shooting with the 100-400mm, you'll either decide your unlikely to ever shoot the 70-300mm again,

...or decide the 100-400mm is too big for some tasks and keep the 70-300mm for portability.

Its not Nuts, there ya go....lol ,..The 70-200 2.8 is great for the times you want to shoot people, weddings, gatherings of family and friends.
The 100-400L II is a super lens and you will find yourself carrying it even when you don't want the weight. But the 70-300L is a super lens ...light so you can carry it
all day and its not a problem for hiking, the zoo, weddings...ya Ive used it at weddings, and the one thing Im finding that the 100-400LII can't do will where I live is landscape's!!
I lve in a place where bush is thick and shooting can be close, and Im finding I cant get that landscape like I did with the 70-300L

So I vote keep all three,...They will all three serve you well. Just my two cents

I just cant see tyimg up that much of my limited resources in a lens that is bested on the long and short sides by your other gear. There are just too many other amazing lenses, or lighting, or other toys to buy.

I don't have a 70-200 f/2.8 ll but I do have both the 70-300L and a 100-400ii. I can't bring myself to sell my 70-300L because it's been such a fine lens for me for several years.

That said, I haven't used it since I got the 100-400 ii. In fact, I just loaned it to our youngest son. This "loan" may turn out to be a gift.... who knows?

I could definitely see having 70-200 and 100-400, or the 70-300L and the 100-400L. Unless you have money to burn, personally I don't see a reason to have all three. I can see a use for each, but it is expensive overlap.

I have all three and the 70-300 is my least used and when I do use it I can't bare to depart with it...It is my travel zoom

Its the 2.8 factor, shooting events like family gatherings, lower light, people in general that makes the 2.8 worth keeping. Its not about focal length I don't think. but if $700 bucks put's you in the poor house,...keep the 70-300L and sell everything else because you have to eat!!

I thought it was too much money to have tied up in similar lenses. I really like the 70-300L a lot but for me I prefer the 135L for a lightweight option. I basically traded the 400 and 70-300L for the 100-400 and after shooting about a month or so with the 100-400II I feel it was a great choice.

There is no going wrong with the 100-400LII,...its a super lens, but its one ill carry in the back pack not on the sling for long. it all comes down to what you are doing,.. shooting wildlife is very much different than street. Ive carried the 70-300L for 10 or 12km but the 100-400L is just that much more to carry.

(If one or the other!) At a difference of 1.31 pounds (that is less than the weight of a camera), I'd personally rather have and carry the 100-400L over the 70-300. That is me though. Add the optional tripod mount to the 70-300L and the difference is even less. Unfortunately (and fortunately) only the foot of the collar on the 100-400LII is removable not the whole collar, or I would have suggested that.

Maybe you should try them both, there's a big difference in there carry ability, hanging on your neck, I've done miles with both

Pondrader wrote in post #17614755
Maybe you should try them both, there's a big difference in there carry ability, hanging on your neck, I've done miles with both

I'm assuming you are referring to me.

I've done miles with the lenses I have. Ff you'd have looked, one of those is the Sigma 150-500. It is a little heavier (half a pound) than the 100-400L. I don't have the 70-300, but lets use the 24-105L I have that is lighter. Depending on where I'm going, I still rather have (and do) the 150-500 on my camera for miles than the lighter 24-105L. So I stand by my statement, that by the way says for ME. I'm also not a small, nor am I weak (though I'm getting old) at 6'2" and 230lbs - which is why I prefaced for me in my post. YMMV.

(By the way) If you are still carrying those lenses around your neck (yes I have done miles that way too), my suggestion is to try a new way - a harness, sling strap, holster, chest carrier, monopod, etc....

For the record I currently do not have a problem lugging around the weight. I do hate the length of my lens (150-500). It is a pain to find and take the bags that will carry its length. Because of this, unless I'm going to go for hours hiking, it usually gets left at home. I've thought of changing to the 100-400, which I think all of my bags can handle its length. Still toying with the idea, because it would come with me almost always. Then I realize I will miss the extra 100mm. So then I think of the 150-600mm lenses out there an could have 200 more mm than the 100-400. That gives me the same length of lens problem I have now. So at the moment I'm at a standstill.

I like having the option of a smaller, lighter weight telephoto at times, so I kept my 70-200 f/4 IS after buying a 100-400L v 1 several years ago. The 70-200 does not get used as much as in the past, but at times I just feel like traveling lighter, so I have kept it -- even after upgrading to a 100-400L II.

Now that I have all 3 lenses in my possession, it's clear that the 70-300 is MUCH smaller and lighter than the 100-400 II. I can put the 70-300 in my bag with all of my other gear no issues. The 100-400, I have to make room for (or even the 70-200).

The 100-400 II... wow, what a lens. I also got some time with the 70-300 this weekend as well, and it did very well at the zoo.

I don't see myself parting with the 70-200 F2.8...

Hmm. I don't exactly need the cash, so I am leaning toward just keeping all three. I can always sell them down the road (at a bit of a loss).