Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS II vs. Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6
I currently own a Canon 70-200 f/4.0L IS lens, a Canon 300mm f/4L IS lens and a Canon 500mm f/4.0L IS lens. I primarily photograph wildlife and I do a lot of walking around. The 300 was my first lens 'cause I couldn't afford something larger and I thought it would be a good all purpose tool. I haven't been disappointed. However, sometimes when I carry the 300, I wish I had the flexibility of the 70-200 with the 1.4x tc. And, sometimes when I carry the 70-200, I wish I had the added punch of the 300 + 1.4x. Sound familiar? Note: I'm keeping the 500!
Now, if Canon came out with a new and improved 100-400 zoom, I might trade in the 300. But the 300 is a superior lens and I'm thinking about another option.
First, price is not an object for this discussion. I'm considering trading in my beloved 70-200 and 300 prime lenses for the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS II as a general purpose lens to be used as is, or with either of the two teleconverters. Ergo - a 140 to 400mm lens with better (?) performance than a 100-400. All of the reviews I've read give this lens the highest possible marks with or without the tc's.
Now, the 2.8 is about twice the weight of the f/4.0 70-200 but about the same as the 100-400 lens without a teleconverter. And, there must be some good carrying systems that make carrying heavy gear more comfortable than using a shoulder strap.
So, I'd appreciate your thoughts - both technical and practical.
Thanks