Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II - or - Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II

Old Greenlander wrote:

Pietro

I have both lenses: 70-200 F2.8 IS MKII and 100-400 MKII

70-200 F4 is a very good lens keep it and you can buy 100-400MKII for extra reach if BIF is of interest to you

IF not, or you need to recover some of the cost, sell the F4 and get the F2.8.

Bokeh is much better at F2.8 compared for F4 especially for family

Be aware that 100-400 extends considerably and in public you will be very visible with a very white and long lens

(70-200 does not extend)

Weight is about the same.

Old Greenlander

Old Greenlander,

Wildlife and BIF is of some interest to me but family photos comes first. I live by the Baltic sea near Stockholm and there is a lot of wildlife and birds even coming up to or flying over my house. To name a few: Fox (Vulpes vulpes), Roe Deer (Capreoulus capreolus), Moose (Alces alces), Osprey (Pandion haliaetus), Grey Heron (Ardea cinerea), (rare) Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) and lots more.

My main use for tele is my photos of family and vacations all over the world. 24-70 + 70-200 is perfect for people and covers 80-90% of my real needs. For people and family I mostly use the short to mid end 70-135mm. When using 200mm it is often for wildlife or birds and 200mm is mostly not enough. I have owned 70-300mm zooms and same thing here, even 300mm is to short for most wildlife and especially for small birds. I have also owned a EF 400f/5.6L very sharp and fun to use. But no IS and only 400mm was impractical for me.

Ideal is perhaps to own both a 70-200f/2.8L IS II for people and family and a 100-400f/4.5-5.6L II for wildlife and birds. A whole lot of money for a hobby.

Another alternative is to keep my 70-200f/4L IS and add the 100-400f/4.5-5.6L II first.

My wife wisely suggests to put most money in to the focal lengths I use the most.