Looking for some TDP community wisdom!


I have a 7D and the EF 70-200 f/4 L IS, which is my all-time favorite lens (at least among the 6 or 7 that I have ever owned). I love shooting wildlife, nature shots (the tele end rather than UWA) and people. The 70-200 is the perfect combo of size, weight, sharpness and cost for much of my needs. But for wildlife and some nature shots, it's just not long enough.


500mm is out of my price range. The 400 f/5.6 prime seems like a good value, but I can't justify buying a super-tele without IS. The 300 f/4 IS seems too short and loses some sharpness with a 1.4x teleconverter, plus it's inherently less flexible than a zoom. Which brings me to the EF 100-400, which would fill the 300-400mm range.


But here's my concern: if I have the 100-400, am I ever going to use the 70-200 other than for planned portraits (for which I also have the EF 85 f/1.8)? I fully realize that from 100-200mm, the 70-200 is significantly sharper than the 100-400. But I wonder if the one-stop telezoom convenience of the 100-400 would lead me to choose it over a sharper lens out of fear that I will need the 300-400mm range.


I am not against changing lenses. But carrying around both the 70-200 and the 100-400 for an outing seems unlikely.


Anyone have a 70-200 and the 100-400? Reactions?


Thanks in advance!


Brian