The unicorn exists!

[DavidWare]

Looks like the 100-400 II is finally real.

http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/11/i...-5-5-6l-is-ii/

[Haydn1971]

Yum yum... Anyone want to buy my 70-300L ;-)

[Lumens]

Let's see $100/month in the savings and yes I might be able to put in a pre-order to pay cash when it comes out say 20??

[neuroanatomist]

Nice lens, especially the 0.31x mag at the 1 m MFD.

I got the 70-300L for it's more compact size for travel. The 100-400 II is longer than the current one, I have no plans to sell the 70-300L. Not sure if I'll buy the 100-400 II...I stopped using mine and recently sold it (I use the 70-300 for travel and family outings, and the 600 II when I need reach). I might be tempted if the 100-400 II takes a 1.4x with only a very minor IQ hit (assuming it takes TCs at all).

[Falstaff]

It's very nice, but I'll keep my 70-300L and buy the new Sigma 150-600 Sport. I love the compact size of the 70-300L and don't want to give it up, but if I didn't own one, this new offering from Canon would be on my Christmas wish list.

[HDNitehawk]

It all comes down to IQ whether it will a worthy lens to have.
I could see owning it if it is on par with the 70-200m II.

[Kayaker72]

The 70-200 II has taken the place of the 100-400L in my travel kit. But, I would like a longer lens for birding and wildlife. I do use the 2x TC and the optics are close to the current 100-400L.

I would be curious as to people's thoughts regarding upgrading to the 100-400 II vs the Sigma 150-600S, vs the Tamron 150-600 or saving for a big white.

I know a lot depends on the optics of the 100-400 II, if it takes a 1.4x tc. But after seeing the size and weight, I am thinking the extra size and weight of the sigma may be worth it.

[Dave Johnston]

It looks to still be a push/pull zoom.... Sigh.

[neuroanatomist]

It looks to still be a push/pull zoom.... Sigh.

Actually, it is almost certainly a rotating zoom with an extending inner barrel similar to the 70-300L. But that makes me go 'sigh' as I prefer the push-pull design.

[Dave Johnston]

Ahh.

I suppose it was the "smooth-tight" thing on the side of the proposed images that threw me off.