Pick any two but not all three

I think I know what I am going to do: But just for fun which 2 would _you_ buy?

70-200 2.8L IS, 300mm f4L IS, 400 f5.6L.

PS the 70-200 is a given so I guess it's just a matter of either of the others. (can't afford the 2.8 or DO anytime soon )

If you are into birding and wildlife (animals not parties) the 400 f/5.6 is the choice. The AF is wicked fast, faster than the 300 f/4. Pick up a 1.4TC and put it behind the 70-200 f/2.8 and the need for the 300 doesn't exist.

Agree with that, 70-200 and a 1.4x and then the 400

I wouldn't pick any of these. I would go with the 100-400 IS...

JZ

Given that the 70-200 IS is a given (is that too may duplicate words?), I would get the 400. As someone else added, the 1.4 TC would give you very good coverage with either lens, and you wouldn't even notice that you didn't have a 300 prime.

Have Fun,

Like the others said, if you already have the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS an 1.4x TC and the 400 f/5.6 may be more useful.

Note that when you use the 1.4x TC on the 400 f/5.6 with a 10D, 20D or other non-1-series camera, autofocus will be disabled - the 1.4x TC costs you 1 stop of light, so the f/5.6 will become f/8, and non-1-series cameras can't autofocus when the max. aperture is smaller than f/5.6.

The 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS is also an interesting option...

I'm glad you started this thread. I have been debating between the 300 f4 and 400 f5.6 lenses, originally thinking about the 400 f5.6 but lately leaning towards the 300 f4 with a 1.4x and 2x TC. What I liked about this arrangement was that if I needed the extra stop, I would have a 300 f4 prime. And the 300 f4 with 2x TC would be a 600 f8, a nice focal length and still a usable aperture. I also like that the 300 f4 has IS, making shutter speeds at those longer focal lengths still managable, the 400 f5.6 doesn't have IS.

But as you guys pointed out, the 70-200 2.8 with 1.4x TC gets pretty close at 280 f4, and the 400 with 1.4x would get close at 560 f8. But I was being lured by the full 600mm. And does IS still work properly with the TCs attached? That could make a difference.

I know that adding the TCs reduces sharpness, with the 1.4x it is barely noticable, with the 2x a bit moreso, and that the 400 f5.6 actually rates a bit sharper than the 300 f4. I am okay with that, and either lens I get, I will be using a TC or two on it. So, with the added thoughts above, what do you guys think now?

Also, the 100-400 isn't an option for me. I used to own the 35-350, and while I loved the range, I hated the push pull zoom. I had it for about a year and a half, used it often due to it's great range, and just never was happy with how it functioned. So no 100-400 for me.

I think it depends on what you're shooting. I mostly shoot kids sports, so for me, the 300 f/4L is perfect for most outdoor sports (only because I can't afford the 300mm f/2.8L or the 200mm f/1.8L), and the 400 would be too long with the 1.6x crop in most cases, and too slow at f/5.6. I really don't think the 70-200 f/2.8L IS with the 1.4x TC will be as good as the 300 f/4 prime. For wildlife I might have gone for the 400mm instead.

I plan to add a 70-200 f/2.8L IS by next baseball season, so my vote would be 70-200 + 300 + 1.4x TC if sports was the main focus, or 70-200 + 400 + 1.4x TC if you plan on doing a lot of wildlife photography.

I Would choose the 400mm f/5.6L over the 300mmf/4L IS


But as mentioned allready,. the decision has more to do with what your using it for.

I shoot wildlife.. and the 400mm is a better birding lens.

If I was shooting sports.. then the 300mm would be a better choice.

Adding TC's does not stop the IS from functioning properly.. but it does effect focus speed.. and with anything but a 1 series digital.. anything over f/5.6 will "turn off" Autofocus all together.

The 70-200mm f/2.8 IS is a great lens to use with a 1.4X TC @ f/4... with IS.. so theres your 300mm

However.. a 300mm with a 2X T-C will be a bit "poopy" (technical term)

If you want a longer lens.. the 400mm is longer. Forget the T-C... and the math is easier

Then there is allways this sage advice....

But it can't replace the 70-200mm f/2.8 when you need low light or faster AF tracking...

Still.. the 100-400mm IS is a very compelling option.

Well I own the 70-200 non-IS, the 400, and the 100-400 L. Kinda easy to guess what I'd pick.

But CDS's statement about sports & the 300 is very sensible.

Given that you've already decided on the 70-200, I'd probably vote for a Bigma (Sigma 50-500). Granted, they're not L glass but they give a good range and lots of people luv 'em.

Jeff

I have the 70-200/2.8 non-IS and a Sigma 50-500. They make a very useful combination for many situations, although the 50-500 gets the most use.

If you don't like the trombone action of the Canon 100-400 IS, you could have a look at the Sigma 80-400 OS. OS functions similar to IS and the Sigma has a twist type zoom ring. I would have considered the 80-400 OS but it does not have an HSM motor with full time manual override.

Thanks

Thanks for all the comments. I picked up the 400 5.6 Friday, and shot a couple frames this morning. First impressions this lens is sharp, great reach for size and weight. Also with the 1.4 converter is way sharper then my 300 f4 with 2x converter. I'll try to post a couple of examples tomorrow.

I vote foroo 100-400 IS more all around lense