Hi, a late return to this thread, but I reckon it's relevant enough given that I've now acquired both a 100-400L
and a 70-200 2.8L mkII.
Yep, as painful as it was financially, I'm well pleased... with both lenses. The reason I decided on both was simple; I'm a lazy git, and a bit anal when it comes to allowing any kind of alien particulates into me camera's internals - I HATE changing lenses, especially in the field. As a result, I now have the 70-200 on my 7D, and the 100-400 on the 500D for "joint events" such as racing and anything else that might require the speed of the former
and the reach of the latter. However, if I'm only birding, the 100-400 will be on 7D, and for general walkaround, the 70-200 remains on the 7D, with the 17-55 f2.8 on the 500D.
The 100-400 is a great lens, let down only buy the f4.5-5.6 aperture, IMO. The push/pull zoom is an acquired taste, but takes no more than one session to get to grips with.
I now feel as though the only gap in my arsenal is in the area of macro, where I'm currently using a 28-year-old 50mm f1.8 on Kenko tubes, but in a year or so I'll probably lay out for a 180mm macro or similar. Skint? I may be, but blissfully glassed-out I most certainly am. Now then... where to find the money to renew my soon-to-expire RSPB membership...
