Roger, I\'ve not the f2.8 but the 70-200 f4L IS and use it with T/Cs get a vIII they are sharper in the corners. As for your 400 choice, if you shoot at 400 w/tripod I\'d get the prime...why pay for the IS if you\'re not going to use it.
The 100-400 has it\'s utility no doubt, but it\'s slightly heavier and costly, and I\'m not a fan of it\'s design, push-pull isn\'t my fav. IQ wise, as seen here on FM, it\'s pretty close for both lenses, usually sharpness and AF speed leans to a prime tho.
I looked really hard at the new 70-300L and ended up getting the 300 f4 IS, and don\'t regret doing so for that FL. With both T/Cs and extension tubes it\'s fantastic, I\'ll probably do the same when looking for a 400.
Lighter lenses are a preference; a physical issue for me. A 10-22/17-40 and 70-200 are my most used lenses, otherwise I\'m quite partial to primes, the 100 mac being a huge fav. Old school film habits die hard I suppose, with the 100-400 vs 400 f5.6L, the lighter prime would get my nood...YMMV as it does for many on FM and their images with the zoom really do shine
Try them both out, rent if you can, good luck deciding and enjoy shooting...
Jerry
Feb 12, 2013 at 11:11 AM
Previous versions of StillFingerz's message #11343460 « Is the 100-400 too redundant with a 70-200? »
