Has your 100-400 v2 replaced your 70-200 v2?

Living in Wallingford PA. with second home in State College PA.

Have not been to Valley Forge National Park since the Bicentennial years.
Should plan a day.

I tend to leave the 100-400 with the 1.4 mkIII extender permanently on my 7DII for most of my shipping, nature, bird and macro shots, but sometimes when the ships are too close I need a lens change. I do not like doing this because of dust and pollen. So I resort to a second 7D body with the 70-200 f2.8 mkII attached.
If I’m still too close, and as a last resort I use the 24-105 mkII
However, the 24-105 mkII L does not seem to have the L quality as the other two lenses so I often take 2-4 shots with either of the longer lenses and stitch them in PS.
Having said that, I find if I am walking I find one body, the 24-105 and 100-400 + 1.4 mkIII extender is just about all I need to lug around with me. I carry a 10-22 WA in the car just in case I need it.
I think the question was has your new 100-400 replaced 70-200.
My answer is not yet, I still have a place for it, but I will further consider all options when the R series develops. A reduction in weight and size would be most welcome.

was thinking of getting 1,4 extender with 70-200mm and a aps-c body

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18872205
.

.
I never had the 20-200 f2.8, but I did have a 70-200mm f4 along with my 24-105mm and 100-400mm.

I found that the 70-200mm focal length range was frustrating to me. . At not even 3x zoom, it seemed to always be either too long at 70mm or too short at 200mm. . The whole point of using a zoom instead of primes is to have a great enough range of focal lengths available without changing lenses. . 70mm shots just aren't all that different than 200mm shots. . I mean, if I am photographing an Elk or a Deer and I want to shoot an environmental portrait one moment, and then a tight headshot the next, the 70-200mm just can't do that.

So I got rid of my 70-200mm and have never been tempted to go back to any lens from the 70-200mm series. . I always have my 24-105mm and my 100-400mm available for use, and these lenses cover anything that I would want to shoot with the 70-200mm. . Depth of field or background blur is something I control by how I position myself in relation to the background, so I don't really need f2.8 to get background blur - I can get that even with smaller apertures like f5.6.

.

As mentioned elsewhere, it matters hugely what you shoot. The 70-200 is a great focal length for domesticated animals (pets, friends' foster dogs, stray cats, horses, donkeys) and non-field sports (cycling, running), besides the obvious portraits. I also have the 100-400, and for whatever reason I almost always prefer the look of the 70-200 (probably DOF, also more practice and my favored subjects). I should probably sell the 100-400, but I feel like I would miss the reach even if I might really not.

Of course, someone who routinely shoots wild animals or field sports will have an entirely different view.

I feel like the consensus is to have both lenses.

Distance and expectation of subject vs frame sizing drives which lens I use. Both the 70-200 and 100-400 serve a purpose, both differently.

I really like the 100-400II though and there is enough subject isolation if handled properly.

.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18875314
I lived in King of Prussia for years and miss the park there. Great place to shoot birds and deer.

.
Oh my goodness! . Small world!

I assume you are referring to Valley Forge? . Years and years ago it was known amongst wildlife professionals as one of the best places in the nation to photograph big Whitetail Deer bucks. . Then sometime back in the 1980s or 1990s they started having a regulated hunt in order to control the population, and it killed it as a trophy buck photography venue.

.

chuckmiller wrote in post #18900068
I feel like the consensus is to have both lenses.

If you have the means and use both, I wouldn't hesitate to do that. Part of my issue is that I like a lot of other people's images from the 100-400, but I rarely find myself out shooting wildlife, field sports, airplanes, or many of the other subjects it's amazing at.

Our first apartment overlooked valley forge.

We were in Gettysburg a few months ago and Valley Forge is on the list. I'll pick your brain on what to see.

chuckmiller wrote in post #18900068
I feel like the consensus is to have both lenses.

I'd really love to have the 1.4x+EF100-400 and an RF70-200/2.8. Best of, well, all worlds.

I have been very fortunate in that I came into this photography habit a bit more seriously late in life and I don't have a stack of ver1 lenses in the closet. Lucky timing has let me purchase many of the current updated improved glass, ver2, ver3,, etc. as a first purchase. I am very happy to have both the 70-200 2.8 v2 and the 100-400 v2 and neither will be leaving the bag any time soon.

My 70-200 f/4 is the ver1 and with all the praise given to the ver2 I will likely upgrade when I find the right deal on either a refurb or preowned and then I'll see if it can actually replace the heavier f/2.8.