I was planning on picking up the 300mm f/2.8 IS II later this year, but this lens has me wondering... I planned on using the lens for wildlife on my 7D (plus 1.4x and 2x extenders when needed). I'm sure the 300mm would be a lot easier to haul out into the woods and handhold. The new 300mm is about 10" long and 5.2 lbs and I'm guessing the 200-400mm will be 15" long and 8 lbs.


I would love to see some MTF charts and more size specs. I wonder if the versatility of the 200-400mm f/4 will trump the image quality of the 300mm f/2.8 IS II or the pure awesomeness of f/2.8 @ 300mm.


Quote Originally Posted by Bob Williams
Why permanently attach something that is commonly known to reduce IQ?

I think a lot of the people this lens is targeted at commonly use extenders anyway. The convenience of being able to add and remove the extender at the flick of a switch is amazing. Plus the extender can be optimized for the lens, so it's probably superior to just adding the normal 1.4x extender. It also looks as though the extender portion may not be the last element in the lens, so it's possibly very different from the traditional extender. A 200-560mm f/4-5.6 might have been significantly longer heaver than a 200-400mm f/4 with the option of becoming a 280-560mm f/5.6.


Quote Originally Posted by freelanceshots
I for one see a huge market for this lens if it was to be priced in between the 2,000 to 3,000 dollar range.

I can only dream about it being that cheap... but alas, I'm sure it will be $7000+ (maybe close to $8000 at release). Look at the Nikon version with no 1.4x extender. It is currently $6799 on B&H. I'm sure the Canon version will be similarly priced. Even at this price, I see a huge market for it. As I understand the Nikon version is a popular lens. I doubt many hobbyists have the lens though.


Quote Originally Posted by Bob Williams
Now, if they called it a 280-560 f5.6-and it had decent IQ, and priced it in th 2-3k range---that would make sense and I think they would sell a bunch.

Honestly I think a 280-560mm f/5.6 would be similarly priced to this lens... probably part of the reason they added a 1.4x extender. The lens elements would need to be about the same size (400mm/4 = 100mm and 560mm/5.6 = 100mm) and the zoom range would still be 2x. I like the versatility potential that this lens has over a 280-560mm f/5.6.


It's interesting that it appears the zoom ring is in front of the focus ring like on the 70-300mm f/4-5.6L. Wonder if this is going to be a new policy on their zooms or if the design just required that placement?