70-200 F/2.8 vs. 300 F/4

I am looking at getting the 70-200 F 2.8 non IS version. I also seen a good deal on a 300 F/4 IS. I was thinking about picking up both. My question is wouldnt I be able to do the same with buying the second lens by using the 1.4X extender?? Might save quite a bit of money that way.

I love my 70-200 f/2.8 IS, an even like it using the 1.4x, but evryone says that the 300 f/4 is SUPA' SHARP!

Huck wrote in post #4365293
I am looking at getting the 70-200 F 2.8 non IS version. I also seen a good deal on a 300 F/4 IS. I was thinking about picking up both. My question is wouldnt I be able to do the same with buying the second lens by using the 1.4X extender?? Might save quite a bit of money that way.

I have both the 70-200 f2.8L (non IS) AND a 300mm f2.8L IS.

In your case I'd really suggest that you get the 70-200 first and see how it works out. I know how much I use MY 70-200 compared to the 300 and as much as I like my 300 it's not the go-to lens that the 70-200 is. The 70-200 will be a lot more useful than the 300 just because it's a zoom, and that stop (for the f4) is useful as well. Now the 300 will have uses as well, and it does have the reputation as being very sharp, but I think that you'll reach for the 70-200 (also VERY sharp!) WAY more often than you will reach for the 300.

Depends on what lenses you already own, of course. Are you interested in Macro? The 300/4 L IS is great for dragonflies, butterflies, flowers.