EF L IS 70-200 v EF L IS 100-400

[sprayhawk]

I'm soon to be in the market for a new lens and I'm looking for some input on which way to invest.

Currently shooting a 1DMkII. Lenses are 300 F4 L IS, 17-40 L, Tamron 28-105 2.8 and both the 1.4 and 2.0 EF II extenders.

Subject matter typically is sporting or wildlife. Like shooting the 300 with either extender, but limits me to a fixed focal length.

Any experience with the 100-400 AND the 1.4 converter? This combo could get me close to the 600mm I'm acheiving currently.

Any experience with the 70-200 and the 2.0 converter? Is/should it be comparable to the 100-400?

TIA,
Byron

[uplander]

I have th EF 70-200 f/2.8 L IS USM The EF 100 - 400 L IS USM and the the EF 400 f/2.8 L IS USM.
The advantage of having a 70-200 f/2.8 with both the 1.4 and 2.0 TC's is having a 70-200 f/2.8 L for low light shooting.
The advantage of the EF 100-400 L is the zoom capabilty
Disadvantages of the 1st option is having to switch out TC's which will cost you shots and a slight loss of IQ whith the 2x TC
Disadvantages of option 2 loss of some low light capabilties and while you can use it with a 1.4 TC it will autofocus much slower if it will autofocus at all.
Having been able to use and try all the methods you describe above, my choice and opinion would be to get the EF 100 - 400 first. It's my workhorse and IQ is very very good if you do your part.
The EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS USM is a fantastic lens in its own right and I think its a lens that everyone should get sooner or later but it and TC's are a poor choice compared to the 100-400 if you feel the need for a 400mm lens.

You mention wildlife and so you need the 400.
My advice on acquisitions would be the
EF 100-400 first
the EF 70-200 second
and then look at getting a supertele prime and then look at the EF 300 f/2.8, EF 400 f/2.8, EF 500 f/4, EF 600 f/4

[dougj]

Here is a post with the 70-200 f4L IS plus stacked 2 and 1.4 TCs. If you check this photographer's profile & posting history on DPR he has a number of 70-200 examples on a 1.6 body. I use the f2.8 IS version of the lens and I'm satisfied, but the f4 IS version does look sharper, especially wide open, it all depends what you're after.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=29149693

There are some posts in that forum related to your subject, but you'll need to dig for them.