Selling 70-200 F4 IS and 400 5.6 for 100-400 F4.5-5.6 II???

[AdamBotond]

Im primary a wildlife shooter and as being such I have been satisfied with my Canon EF 400 5.6 L lens for that purpose, while also appreciating my 70-200 F4 IS for more general purpose. Having IS is certainly appealing, even if I use tripod more often than not. I would also spare some space and weight by that switch. As far as I'm concerned, 100-400 zoom is quite up to 400 5.6 in both optical quality and af performance.
So would you make that switch, is it reasonable?

 

[Mikehit]

Im primary a wildlife shooter and as being such I have been satisfied with my Canon EF 400 5.6 L lens for that purpose, while also appreciating my 70-200 F4 IS for more general purpose. Having IS is certainly appealing, even if I use tripod more often than not. I would also spare some space and weight by that switch. As far as I'm concerned, 100-400 zoom is quite up to 400 5.6 in both optical quality and af performance.
So would you make that switch, is it reasonable?

I have the 100-400ii and will not sell the 70-200 f4 because the times I want the 70-200 I would not really want to lug the extra weight of the 100-400. So would I make that switch? No - but maybe I am more 'generalist' than you are.

I have one question: How often do you have the 400 on the camera for a specific subject and wish you could zoom out a bit or wish you had the 70-200 on instead and don't have time to switch?
If the answers is 'not often' then is weight the only reason? Or is it gear envy?

The 100-400 makes a lot of sense especially as the Mkii has a very helpful close-focussing distance for things like insects if you are interested in that side of things. But it is a lot of money...

 

[Random Orbits]

It is reasonable. You'll end up using the 100L more as a short telephoto more without the 70-200 for times you don't want to bring the 100-400 IS II. But you do gain in IQ, zoom versatility, less weight and space for the case when you're carrying the most gear, which is a clear win.

 

[nc0b]

I have better keeper rate for BIF with my 400mm f/5.6 than with my 100-400 II. For more general wildlife I prefer the zoom. I also have both the 70-200mm f/2.8 II and f/4 IS. They both have their place. 2.8 indoors and portraiture, and f/4 when traveling. The 100-400mm zoom can get lost in the sky much more than the prime. On the other hand a 1.4X TC works well on the zoom, with appropriate body, than on the old prime.