fyimo244 Loc: Arkansas

Over the years I built up my Canon Lens Kit and I have these 3 lens a Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS, Canon EF 300mm f4L IS, and a Canon 400mm f5.6 L. I'm thinking of buying the Canon EF 400mm f4.5-5.6L IS lens and getting rid of the three I mentioned above. This would make my main lens kit having two less of the expensive lens. My zoom lens kit would than be Canon EF 17-40mm f4L, Canon EF 24-105mm f4L IS, Canon EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS USM. I'm wondering if this would be a good move for me because it looks like it would be a good move. I have other lens in my lens kit like a EF 100mm f2.8L IS macro lens, EF 85mm f1.8.

Advice wanted on the Pro's and Con's ???

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

Well, I'd recommend the new 100-400 mark II, but not the original. The new lens is noticeably sharper than the older 100-400. O also don't think I'd get rid of the 70-200 f/2.8. That is a fast lens and worth keeping.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

Are you referring to the original 100-400 or the newer version II.
If you are referring to the version II lens then I'd sell the 400 5.6 and the 300 4.0, and keep the 70-200 2.8 for those occasions that need the shorter, faster lens.
The newer 100-400 is an amazing, versatile lens, much better than the older, heavier lens it replaces.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

A good idea you have ....provided you never need the 2.8 aperture of the 70-200 .....

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

The II version is heavier than the I version - not by much tho ....

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

Really? I thought it was heavier. I sold mine when the version II lens hit the street. Maybe I'm thinking of its sibling, my EF 28-300L, which is a lot like the older 100-400, and is currently in the shop getting rebuilt.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Only thoughts about the value of F2.8 are:

1. Faster AF, especially if you use a teleconverter.
2. At F4 and 200mm it will be sharper than the 100-400 at F5.6 and 200mm, but only in the corners. Both lenses have exceptionally good center sharpness.
3. You can get more DoF isolation to better separate the subject from the foreground/background. At 30 ft, the DoF is 2 ft at F5.6 and 1.1 ft at F2.8.

Jerrin1 Loc: Wolverhampton, England

When I was a Canon user I owned the 100 - 400mm f4.5/5.6L IS II and thought it was a fabulous lens. Have you considered, however, just buying a Canon 2 x TC III for your 70 - 200 f2.8L IS? Should you choose the 100 - 400mm I doubt you will be disappointed.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

I got the 100-400mm II last year and have used it a lot... Love it! But I still keep and use 70-200mm (actually two of them, f/4 IS and f/2.8 IS).... And I keep and use 300mm f/4 IS (two of those, too... one probably headed in for repair after about 10 years).... As well as a 300/2.8 IS and a couple other long lenses.

There are times when I have to use the 300mm f/4 or 70-200mm f/2.8 due to lighting conditions. I try to use the 100-400mm II as much as possible for it's versatility and quality... but there are times that f5-f/5.6 just won't cut it and I need to use the faster lenses along with a high ISO (6400) and a just-barely-fast-enough shutter speed. With my 7DIIs I can and sometimes do use even higher ISOs, but that always means more post-processing work and fairly limited enlargeablity/croppability of the finished images.

Plus, a high ISO setting doesn't do anything about AF performance. While the 100-400mm II has reasonably fast and highly consistent AF, in good conditions I think it's just a tiny bit less fast than either 70-200, 300/4 or 300/2.8... but in more challenging/marginal lighting conditions it slows just a little more, isn't as "instantaneous" as the larger aperture lenses. Shooting a lot of sporting events and fast action, I need AF to be as fast as possible.

I've at times used the 100-400mm in place of 70-200mm and thought I might be able to live without those shorter zooms... so long as light was reasonably good and/or that last little bit of AF performance wasn't necessary. But, I don't want to imply that it's not fast focusing. It is. In reasonably good light it's fully capable of locking onto and tracking fast moving subjects:



And it's versatile zoom range let's you catch the subject farther away or much closer, too...



But, the 100-400 II weighs in at about 3.5 lbs. That can be a factor if hiking with it or on extended shoots (above was on a tripod... during a 4-day state championship event with close to 12 hours of near-continuous shooting per day... 17,000 images total). The 70-200/4 weighs 1.7 lb; 300/4 weighs 2.6 lb; the original 100-400 weighs just a tad over 3 lb.; and a 70-200/2.8 comes in at 3.25 lb. The 100-400 lenses are also larger diameter... hand holding them for a long time is more tiring than the smaller diameter 70-200s or 300/4. The increased weight of the 100-400 II is probably due to it's robustness. The guys at Lensrentals.com love to take stuff apart to see how what's inside and they called the 100-400 II "the best built zoom they'd ever seen". So, the slight increase in weight is a trade-off for more durability and reliability.

Also, the 300mm and 70-200s are all IF/IZ lenses... "internal focusing/internal zooming". They don't change length and shift balance when focused and/or zoomed. On the the other hand, the 100-400mm is not IZ... it extends quite a bit when zoomed. While this upsets the equilibrium slightly, it doesn't prevent using the lens on a gimbal (as was the case with the above series).

Sorry... but image quality of a 70-200 + 2X combo is nowhere close to that of either 100-400mm, and especially the II, used without a teleconverter. Even the best EF 70-200/2.8 IS "II" with the most ideal EF 2X "III" falls a bit short. Any other combo of lens and 2X makes for a bigger hit on IQ and will not be able to equal the 100-400s.

Gene51 is correct, too... with their apertures (which are necessary to keep the lens a reasonable size) the 100-400mm lenses have less ability to blur down backgrounds.

IMO, the 100-400 II is a superb, versatile and highly capable lens. I really like it and use it a lot. But for me it doesn't completely replace some other lenses. But that's just me. Other folks may find it can take the place of one or more other lenses in their kit.

BigBear Loc: Northern CT

To start, no fixed lens would ever be able to replace the 70-200 2.8. I would trade in your 100-400 and 300 f/4 for a 300 2.8 and an extender if possible.
I also have Canon EF 17-40mm f4L, Canon EF 24-105mm f4L IS, Canon EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS, Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS, Canon EF 300mm 2.8 IS and TC 2x II.

My preferred lens for wildlife is the 300 2.8, and for people my 24-105 f/4 or 70-200 2.8 depending on the setting.

However, nobody has asked the big question. What subjects do YOU shoot ??

fyimo244 Loc: Arkansas

I shoot mostly wildlife and occasionally landscapes and I've bought the Canon EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS version one in near mint condition. I'm also keeping my Canon 70-200mm f2.8L IS lens and my Canon 300mm f4L IS lens. I do my photography for myself and so I don't make any money doing it. I fact I won't sell my Canon EF 400mm f5.6 L until after I have the new 100-400mm for a few months and use it and see if I'm happy. I shoot people pictures of the great grandkids and people I'm around also and I use my EF 24-105mm f4L IS for that.

I want to thank everyone for their comments

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Looks excellent to me. I would suggest though if you have the money get the II version of the 24-105 and the 100-400. They are substantial improvements over the older versions. And after that if you can afford it the 16-35 III but that is asking a lot of your budget. but the first 2 definitely get the II versions. The 70-200 is good but the 100-400 II runs circles around it except for the aperture is not as wide. It focuses far closer and is great for near macro shots when set at 400mm. No other lens made by anyone comes close to this feature of close focus (About 3') and I use it a lot when in the woods.