300mm L or 70-200 2.8L IS

[gturner]

I am looking for a multipurpose telephoto
I already own (and am happy with) the 70-200L F4 (non-is), but it does have its limitations.

on the edge of a sports field its AF is screaming fast, but it just doesn't have the reach.
My old 70-300 is just rubbish

So, I am thinking upgrade to the 70-200 F2.8 IS to cover portrait, low light and a sports using a 1.4 or 2x convertor.

OR

getting a 300mm L prime
I rented the f2.8 and it was staggeringly good, but at the price of a small car it just ain't going to happen


Does anyone own the 300mm F4 IS?


OR

Is the 100-400 L IS the answer?



Which would you take?

[OsmosisStudios]

I think you have to start seperating things out.

I'd personally go the 100-400 route and add an 85/1.8 for portraits.

[RichardTaylor]

+ 1 OsmosisStudios

Because
Quote:
"multipurpose telephoto"

I own a Canon 100-400 F4 L IS and it is a great, in good light, lens.

However if you are shooting sports in low light (I don't) it would be much too slow.