Which would you ask Canon to make.

[Jannie]

They have come up with the 24LII 1.4
The 35L is dreamboat 1.4
They jumped into heavy stuff with the 50L 1.2
And the 85LII 1.2

Then we have the 135L f2
200L f2
300L f2.8
500L f4

There seems to be a gap between the 85L and 135L, does anyone else feel this gap with their own gear and what would you ask for? This is where I fill in a lot with the 70-200 f2.8 IS but could sure use something faster.

[DDCSD]

Crop the 135mm shots to fill the gap. 24mm to 35mm and 35mm to 50mm is a bigger gap (in my opinion) than 85mm to 135mm.

I guess a 105/100mm 1.8 would be nice though.

[Jim G]

You know... I've never felt the need for a 100mm personally. I shoot 85mm and 135mm regularly and have really never wanted an intermediate focal length.

100mm f/2? Not an L but it's a great lens.

[noodle_snacks]

a 600mm F5.6L IS is much more desirable in my book.

[minimalfear]

Gap. GAP! I am fairly new to DSLR photography but it seems to me the EF ( and EF-S ) choices should go . . .

16-35
35-70
70-200
200-400

some logical ascension up the ladder without overlap.

[Rio Sundoro]

200-400mm, but a more affordable version than the Nikon's. Currently I have 70-200 and 300 prime.

[mikekelley]

400f4 that isn't the dumb DO. but that would just cannabalize DO sales.

[AlanU]

Perhaps not a gap fill in..... It'd be nice for canon to build a 50 f/1.4 mkII that has a more robust AF USM and smoother bokeh to compete with the Siggy 50mm.

A 50L that is not as prone to focus shift would be nice too.

[mikekelley]

A 200-400 would be nice, also.

[GetOnMyLevel]

300mm f/2L IS
it would be pleasing to sports shooters and bird shooters with a 2x teleconverter

[tester3000]

I want canon to make a 17-85 f4 IS lens that doesn't suffer from the same distortion and vignetting problems on the wide end of the current 17-85. Priced somewhere around $500 and i'd buy for sure.

[Depth]

An improved 17-55mm would be great. Like a metal body and better sealing.

[DDWD10]

An improved 17-85mm IS USM, of course.

[vuthuyduong]

What about a 10mm f/2?

[Cadwell]

200-400mm f/4L or a 400mm f/4L prime. 400mm @ medium apertures is the big weakness in the Canon lineup for me.

[HaroldC3]

An updated 35mm f2 lens with USM. Maybe make it a 1.8

[tkbslc]

Not sure what you mean by "gap". You mean 85 and 135 are too far apart? They are actually closer than 50 and 85 (1.6x vs 1.7x) so it seems like a pretty standard progression.

They do have the 100mm f2 already, though, so not sure what you need. 85 and 100 are really close though, so you would probably want a 115 or something.

Has this been a big problem for you? I can't think of many situation where an 85 would be unworkably too short and a 135 just too long. If so, get the 100/2.

[Mil]

200-400mm f/4L or a 400mm f/4L prime. 400mm @ medium apertures is the big weakness in the Canon lineup for me.
Totally agree on 200-400 f4 L version.

[Patriks7]

They do have the 100mm f2 already, though, so not sure what you need.

I guess it's because the 100mm is not an L? :D

[ettlz]

10-300mm f/1.2-2.8 ;)

[lukeap69]

200-400 f/4L IS USM

[darosk]

24-70 2.8L IS. I don't care if it weight two bricks.
But some say an update to the 24-70 is already in the works ;)

[cfibanez]

They have come up with the 24LII 1.4
The 35L is dreamboat 1.4
They jumped into heavy stuff with the 50L 1.2
And the 85LII 1.2

Then we have the 135L f2
200L f2
300L f2.8
500L f4

There seems to be a gap between the 85L and 135L, does anyone else feel this gap with their own gear and what would you ask for? This is where I fill in a lot with the 70-200 f2.8 IS but could sure use something faster.

The 100mm f/2.8 macro fills this gap very nicely, I think. Not an "L", but stunning sharpness.

[cfibanez]

200-400mm f/4L or a 400mm f/4L prime. 400mm @ medium apertures is the big weakness in the Canon lineup for me.

Put my name too on this one!

[nureality]

Gap. GAP! I am fairly new to DSLR photography but it seems to me the EF ( and EF-S ) choices should go . . .

16-35
35-70
70-200
200-400

some logical ascension up the ladder without overlap.

The idea of "without overlap" has its shortcomings... namely the one. Without overlap, you have to swap lenses MORE often, and that leads to missed shots.

But the 200-400 definitely would be welcomed.

[BradM]

400f4 that isn't the dumb DO. but that would just cannabalize DO sales.

200-400mm f/4L or a 400mm f/4L prime. 400mm @ medium apertures is the big weakness in the Canon lineup for me.

Put my name too on this one!


Canon of course does make a 400mm f/4 IS, it is light with very quick & accurate AF, excellent image quality wide open and takes the 1.4x very, very well.

Of course the DO optics and small sales numbers brings it in a bit expensive but the images it produces are on par with my 500mm f/4 which it exactly what I expected for the price. The below were shot at 560mm on the 50D.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y259/Bradklr/Marmot400DO.jpg

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y259/Bradklr/BOwl400mmDO.jpg

[gasrocks]

I think Canon does pretty well on their own. Yes, market demand will rule. Not sure they will ever need to produce "everything."

[clint0914]

17-200 2.8 L IS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Make it!!!!

[guitarman2977]

24-70 2.8L IS. I don't care if it weight two bricks.
But some say an update to the 24-70 is already in the works ;)

I second that!

[yonni]

I want canon to make a 17-85 f4 IS lens that doesn't suffer from the same distortion and vignetting problems on the wide end of the current 17-85. Priced somewhere around $500 and i'd buy for sure.

An improved 17-85mm IS USM, of course.

Yep, I want one of these too. Throw in 4 stop IS.

[oaktree]

A weather sealed 5DmkIII with 5 fps and a 17-40/4L II with IS.

[Jannie]

Yes there is a gap when I'm photographing people, I shoot mostly enviromental portraits when I notice this, right now the 85L is my most used lens on the MKIII but I generally put on one lens and go to work. Lately this involves a lot of movement, we walk, talk, find different natural light and I may fill or not and moving more toward OCF key but most of the time that's a strobe.

I'm lately shooting a lot in a very short period of time, barely posing them and getting them to talk, I grab the frames in between and it's working wonderfully but these sessions seldom last more than 15 minutes and it's all about connection between the two of us, I seldom can stop for switching lenses.

I like the focal length the 135L had on FF and would like that look on the MKIII and yes I can get it with the 70-200 2.8 but find many people really being aware of the hugeness of the camera when I work that distance (it seriously does not help that it's painted white). A 105mm lens would put me right there, and if it's got a fast focus and stunning color like the 135L as well as having really good IS, I'd be the first in line to buy it. Until then, I'm using the 85L which is working out really well but don't like the slightly more facial distortion when I shoot really close, I don't get that with the 135L on FF.

But I do not miss FF otherwise, everything about the MKIII is perfect (okay the LCD could be better) but lately I only show up with one lens for a lot of this type of work, everything is to concentrate on the person I'm photographing and it's working wonderfully.

Yes I'm quite convinced by the look I get from my L lenses, and yes the 100 2.8 is sharp but that's only a small part of what makes a lens great, lenses like the 85L and 135L have soul and sometimes I think the 70-200 2.8 has it too but it seems to shine that way less often and only in certain type of lighting. I can get there more often and faster with the 85L and 135L and more so with the MKIII than the 5D could but that camera was pretty awsome. As one person mentioned here on this forum, the MKIII's images seem to be sprinkled with pixie dust and I agree; just the way Canon put together the numbers make these lenses and that camera really appeal to my eye.

I have seen tons of really sharp images from 100 2.8 lenses, amazingly so, but I have seldom (okay this is subjective and just my taste, you can do what you want) seen portraits shot with the 100 2.8 that I really loved, in the way I saw so many images from the 85L and 135L here on this forum which convinced me to buy both of those lenses and they have given me what I wanted without effort.

I believe that every manufacturer makes exceptionally sharp macro lenses, have you noticed that, but they don't build that look into the rest of their lenses as far as I can tell, it might be just the way they feel close up's need to be, they can adjust sharpness/resolution, contrast, color etc. into the build and it's important to find the right combination for the most likely use of the lens. The 70-200 2.8 to my friend who shoots a lot of long sports stuff with longer lenses seemed soft, and he complained right from the start and couldn't see why I liked that lens so much ( I talked him into buying it) and it wasn't the camera, he was using it on both a 1DMKIII and a 1DsMKIII. Then one day he shot a bunch at a friends wedding with the 70-200 2.8 and called me after he had the photos up on the computer. I get it he said, this thing is magic on people but he sold it because his thing isn't people like mine. He turned that money toward a 500 f4 - WOW!

It isn't because the 70-200 2.8 is soft either, it's because it's beautiful in a different way. Well I would like the kind of beauty I get from an 85L in a 105L with IS, and I think that f2 would be fine. I've seen so little from the current 100 f2 and nothing that got me excited in the way I want. Also IS would be very important for this lens as I sometimes shoot people in quiet serious/contemplative moments where the light is only from windows, often far away. But at that focal length, 1.8 or 2 would be just about right if I can get the kind of pretty bokeh that I have from my 85L and 135L. It isn't just focal length or f stop, it's the look a special lens can give. That's why I sold my 24-105 once I'd shot with a 24-70, the 24-105 which is an excellent lens, did not get me to that place very often.

[tkbslc]

I like the focal length the 135L had on FF and would like that look on the MKIII and yes I can get it with the 70-200 2.8 but find many people really being aware of the hugeness of the camera when I work that distance (it seriously does not help that it's painted white). A 105mm lens would put me right there, and if it's got a fast focus and stunning color like the 135L as well as having really good IS, I'd be the first in line to buy it. Until then, I'm using the 85L which is working out really well but don't like the slightly more facial distortion when I shoot really close, I don't get that with the 135L on FF.

B

Like I said before, 100mm f2.

[Simon Turkin]

Like I said before, 100mm f2.

There is one already

[clint0914]

LOL??

[l33_garf]

Jannie, that is an excellent answer, i have none of the lenses mentioned except the 'walk around' 24-105 but you obviously have a lot of experience with the lenses you mentioned and have a clear desire for a new 85L/135L hybrid in the '105L'

its nice to see someone answer the question with such reasoning and a well thought out approach to an answer, instead of the 'ultimate, flawless 11-600 f 1.2'

as i do not shoot pro, and probably never will, for me it would be a larger ranged general zoom which had the IQ of the 70-200 f4 is and the low light ability of some of the primes.
not being greedy but something along the lines of the old tamron 28-300 but with IS and a decent Aperture. f2 would be fine.

Lee

[DDWD10]

I agree, a 105L f/1.2 or f/1.4 would be awesome (and entirely unattainable for me!)

How about some more EF-S primes, Canon? You have me smitten with your only one, the 60mm Macro!

[picturecrazy]

How about something really unique?? Like a 50-85 F/1.8. Or 35-50 F/1.4? That would give you some serious versatility on two bodies!

Keeping the zoom range really small makes it easier to keep the optics good, and keep the weight and size down to a usable level. Tokina has showed there is a huge market for very short range zooms, and showed you can do it with minimal optical and physical compromises.

[fenno]

4.5mm ef-s fisheye?

[tkbslc]

There is one already

Yeah, that is what I am telling her to use, but thanks. I am saying she is asking for a lens that exists.

[Simon Turkin]

Yeah, that is what I am telling her to use, but thanks. I am saying she is asking for a lens that exists.
I was making her double aware:lol:

[Gibbo]

What about a 10mm f/2?

Never going to happen.

[Jeff81]

I wouldn't mind an update of the 50L eliminating the focus shift. I can wait 5-10 years.

[FlyingPhotog]

200-400mm f/4L or a 400mm f/4L prime. 400mm @ medium apertures is the big weakness in the Canon lineup for me.

I would definately agree with this sentiment...

[RPCrowe]

My 400mm f/5.6L is an awsome lens but, I wish it had IS capability at a not much greater price or weight and with no loss in quality.

I find myself often using my 300mm f/4L IS with a 1.4x TC because of the IS. The combination is, however, just a bit slower to focus and the IQ is just a bit less than the 400mm f/5.6L or the bare 300mm f/4L IS lens.

I keep the 400mm because of its OUTSTANDING IQ and AF capability.

[fiorano94]

</fail>
17-200 2.8 L IS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Make it!!!!
</fail>

[maranelloboy05]

</fail>

</fail>

Talk about an HTML fail.

[fiorano94]

Talk about an HTML fail.
Ha.

All I had to do was illustrate the impossible-ness of that lens.

[engrmariano]

12-24/2.8L USM to counter nikkor 14-24/2.8

and may be 100-400 f/4L IS USM...

[MDJAK]

I'm not asking, I'm demanding Canon make a camera body that can focus. Hopefully that camera will be the 1DMKIV.

When, and if, that occurs, I'll be rejoining the red ring crowd. Until then, fughedaboutit.

me

[merp]

10-800 f1.2

[Veger]

17-85 f/2.8 that isn't soft (or a 17-85 f/2.8 L)

[CyberDyneSystems]

300mm f/2L IS
it would be pleasing to sports shooters and bird shooters with a 2x teleconverter

And it would weight 11-13 lbs!

re: the 200-400mm, man this is such a sweet Nikon lens.
I'd actually prefer to see Canon mimic the SIGMA 120-300mm f/2.8 first, with IS...
It'd be a great match for the 200-400mm f/4 with a 1.4x t-con on it.

[Bug Killer]

15-65/4 IS USM

[DeaconG]

24-105 2.8 IS L
24-70 2.8 IS L
100-400 4-5.6 L
17-55 2.8 IS L
I think that covers it...

[jbhswim]

a new ef-s 17-85 possibly f/4 with 4 stop IS and less distortion, better image quality.

[NickSimcheck]

Compact FF camera (range finder if they could make it work, it would need glass in the body to correct the difference in lens design.)

Compact 40/45mm f/2 that is sharp and contrasty.
Update the 50mm f/1.2 to help with back focus.
Compact 75mm f/2.8, again sharp'n contrasty.

12-24 f/2.8L
Update the 24-70L with IS
Update the 100-400L
200-400 f/4L
400-800 f/5.6L

[Jannie]

I'm fully aware of the 100 f2 and wanting something in that length designed for portriture or that is excellent for portraiture and other things likenthe 135 would be wonderful. Essentially I'm politely asking for an f2 L series lens that will be to the 1.3 crop MKIII equivalent to what the 135L is to a Full Frame camera.

I seem to either photograph people at f9 (why 9 and not 8 or 10 I haven't a clue) When using strobes, or when shooting available light I shoot mostly now between f 1.6 and f 2.8 and the latter is where my best work shows up but that's also becaose there can be more spontaniety with available light.

But the issue here is not just depth of field but how pretty the bokeh is. To date I love the bokeh that I've seen from the 85L , 135L 70-200L 2.8, 200L f2, I know longer lenses might have stunning bokeh but I'm not using them on people.

I don't care for the bokeh at people shooting distance on the 50 1.4, (haven't looked at the 1.2) don't get excited about it from the 85 1.4, 24-105, 100 f2, 100 f2.8. All of those are good to great for other things and good for people portraits but being spoiled by the 85L , 70-200L 2.8 and the 135L f2 makes me want it in a lens around 105-110mm which would put me close to 123mm on the MKIII with it's 1.3 crop. I love this camera.

[Canonswhitelensesrule]

EF 17-105 f2.8L or f4L I.S.
EF 300-500 f2.8-4L I.S.

[jobe1492]

EF 70-200 f2.8L IS II with the IQ of the current 70-200 F4L IS.

[izthistaken]

its nice to see someone answer the question with such reasoning and a well thought out approach to an answer, instead of the 'ultimate, flawless 11-600 f 1.2'

No, no. I want that. :lol: :lol:

[JAcosta]

Lens? 100mm f/1.4 L USM

Bricks would be shat.


Body?

Mate an EOS 3 and a 5DII.

[Whopper]

I have two dream lenses. A 15-40/f4L and a 200-500/f5.6L IS.

Regards,

Rob

[DarthVader]

24-105mm f/2.8

[Pandya]

100-400 f/4L USM with a twisty zoom would be nice.
failing that, 200-400 f/4L USM would do the trick. obviously both with cracking five stop IS.

[Tom W]

Well, here's an odd one. Or maybe not - a 28-300 f/4 IS L lens. F/4 would add to the usefulness of the superzoom, and might make it a worthwhile companion for PJ and event photography where portability and 'getting the shot' are very important factors.

[Ob Com]

A 28mm 1.4L would be super

[siriusdogstar]

Open Source the firmware for both camera and lenses.

[jcothron]

EOS 3D

[DarthVader]

You want your parents to work for free ?

Open Source the firmware for both camera and lenses.

[Gibbo]

24-105mm f/2.8

Don't we all.

[Colin Morey]

Considering we can go 16-35 f2.8, 24-70 F2.8 70-200 f2.8 (with and without IS), how about a 200-500 f2.8 IS? not bothered if it's a push-pull zoom or rotate (although i'd prefer the latter I think).

biggest problem will be the weight. Although I'd settle for a constant f4 as it would still AF with a 2x on a 1-series.

If you don't think this is do-able, I'd be interested in why not.

[alt4852]

Lens? 100mm f/1.4 L USM

Bricks would be shat.


Body?

Mate an EOS 3 and a 5DII.

no, i think bricks would be shat if canon made a digital version of the 1v. i just want a 5d with pro-AF and weathersealing. for how i shoot, i don't want the bulkiness of the 1-series. i swear, i don't ask for much. :(

[wickerprints]

Considering we can go 16-35 f2.8, 24-70 F2.8 70-200 f2.8 (with and without IS), how about a 200-500 f2.8 IS? not bothered if it's a push-pull zoom or rotate (although i'd prefer the latter I think).

biggest problem will be the weight. Although I'd settle for a constant f4 as it would still AF with a 2x on a 1-series.

If you don't think this is do-able, I'd be interested in why not.

At 500/2.8, the diameter of the entrance pupil would be 179mm = 7 inches. That would not include the added size of the lens barrel, the mechanics to hold and move the elements for focusing, and to top it all off, the zoom capability. The result is that such a lens would need to be at least 9 inches diameter, more realistically 10. By comparison, the EF 500/4L IS is 5.8" diameter with a 125mm entrance pupil at f/4. It weighs 8.5 lbs.

As the weight of a lens element increases as the third power of the diameter, you could expect a theoretical 200-500/2.8L IS to weigh something around 25-35 lbs. That is being conservative, since the 25 lb. figure is derived as if no additional elements were needed to design in the additional zoom capability. So in the context of the size and weight of such a design, saying you would prefer a rotating over a push-pull zoom design is...well, absurd, considering no lens of that weight could be made push-pull at all.

For comparison, the no-longer-produced EF 1200/5.6L IS has a diameter of 9 inches and weighs 36 lb. It sold for around $100,000 give or take several grand (or in terms of lenses, a few 400/2.8L IS).

So could Canon design a 200-500/2.8L IS? I suppose they could. But it would be the width and weight of the 1200 (though probably not as long), cost about as much if not more, and most importantly, the zoom advantage simply would not outweigh the inevitable loss of optical quality of a zoom design.

[verdantsound]

Don't we all.

haha actually...24-105 f1.4 no more 2.8s!

[DDCSD]

Considering we can go 16-35 f2.8, 24-70 F2.8 70-200 f2.8 (with and without IS), how about a 200-500 f2.8 IS? not bothered if it's a push-pull zoom or rotate (although i'd prefer the latter I think).

biggest problem will be the weight. Although I'd settle for a constant f4 as it would still AF with a 2x on a 1-series.

If you don't think this is do-able, I'd be interested in why not.


It is possible. Sigma has already made one. Its $25,000 dollars and 35 lbs. No IS/OS, which doesn't matter as there is no way you could ever hand hold it. Electronic zoom.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0801/08013101sigma250500.asp

[Jannie]

Now I've decided I would like Canon to make a 24-85L 2.8 that focuses as close as the 24-70 and that does not telescope TJE front element but has even netter IQ than the 24-70. IS would be nice too

[Colin Morey]

At 500/2.8, the diameter of the entrance pupil would be 179mm = 7 inches. That would not include the added size of the lens barrel, the mechanics to hold and move the elements for focusing, and to top it all off, the zoom capability. The result is that such a lens would need to be at least 9 inches diameter, more realistically 10. By comparison, the EF 500/4L IS is 5.8" diameter with a 125mm entrance pupil at f/4. It weighs 8.5 lbs.

As the weight of a lens element increases as the third power of the diameter, you could expect a theoretical 200-500/2.8L IS to weigh something around 25-35 lbs. That is being conservative, since the 25 lb. figure is derived as if no additional elements were needed to design in the additional zoom capability. So in the context of the size and weight of such a design, saying you would prefer a rotating over a push-pull zoom design is...well, absurd, considering no lens of that weight could be made push-pull at all.

For comparison, the no-longer-produced EF 1200/5.6L IS has a diameter of 9 inches and weighs 36 lb. It sold for around $100,000 give or take several grand (or in terms of lenses, a few 400/2.8L IS).

So could Canon design a 200-500/2.8L IS? I suppose they could. But it would be the width and weight of the 1200 (though probably not as long), cost about as much if not more, and most importantly, the zoom advantage simply would not outweigh the inevitable loss of optical quality of a zoom design.


Thank you for that, I feel like I learned something today.

[DDCSD]

Thank you for that, I feel like I learned something today.

Did you happen to see my post showing that such a lens already exists for Canon cameras, just not made by Canon?

[wickerprints]

Did you happen to see my post showing that such a lens already exists for Canon cameras, just not made by Canon?

Interestingly, I was not aware of the Sigma 200-500/2.8. But notice how after I posted my prediction on the size and weight of such a lens, how closely the Sigma lens actually comes to matching my prediction. It is 35 pounds and has approximately the same diameter. And it does not have IS. Since the IS group is generally closest to the focal plane, there would not be a huge increase in weight but it would probably add a couple pounds.

It is also interesting to note that the Sigma lens requires its own dedicated power source for the AF, which makes sense since trying to move such large elements on the camera's battery power is impractical. I did not factor this into my weight and size estimate.

As for cost, I would estimate adding an IS group would probably increase the cost of the lens by around $1000. Then consider that Canon lenses are exceptionally sharp at these focal lengths, so to merely turn in a respectable performance, it would probably need at least two fluorite elements and several UD and/or aspherical elements. And these are going to be big and ridiculously expensive. Sigma might get away with doing these for cheap--if at all, but a Canon L build quality lens could easily cost 3x the Sigma. So that's $75k right there.

So like I said, could Canon do it? Sure. But the more relevant question is why should they do it? Is it REALLY that important to have that continuous zoom range? You could purchase the 200/2L IS, 300/2.8L IS, 400/2.8L IS, and the 500/4L IS, still have plenty of change left over, their total weight would still be less than the Sigma zoom, and you will undoubtedly get better optical quality all around.

I'll close out with a revised proposal that would make a lot more sense from a lens design perspective. It is much more feasible to design a 200-500/2.0-4.0 lens. This is still quite aggressive--your entrance pupil will have to be 125mm and so your front element will need to be at least 5", but judging from the 500/4L IS, I think it's possible. You'd probably have something like 200/2, 300/2.8, 400/3.5, and 500/4. It wouldn't weigh 35 pounds. Maybe only 18 pounds. And it might come in under $20k if Canon made it. You could do even cheaper with a 200-500/2.8-5.6, which "only" requires a 90mm entrance pupil. I know people dislike variable max aperture zooms, but it is in my opinion a much more doable set of constraints that has the potential to at least rival the corresponding primes in quality.

[Colin Morey]

hmm, perhaps a 100-400 f4 would be more do-able, and would allow a 1.4x converter?

DDCSD, I did see your comment, but mis-read it. that's a beast of a lens.

[jr_senator]

A decent 20mm f/2.8.

[shadowcat]

200-500 F-4 would be sweet I don't care how heavy it is.

[DDCSD]

200-500 F-4 would be sweet I don't care how heavy it is.

Do you care how much it costs though? ;)

[binlerne]

A decent 20mm f/2.8.

I too want Canon to make a good 20mm lens.

[jr_senator]

I too want Canon to make a good 20mm lens.
Yeah, I got a 16-35L because it is better IQ than Canon's prime. I really don't like hauling extra weight over a prime. I had a Tokina 17mm f/3.5 which was a decent lens, just wider than I wanted.

[brownbugger]

perhaps a 17-55 2.8 in L quality , i would buy it !

[Tom Reichner]

300mm f/2L IS
it would be pleasing to sports shooters and bird shooters with a 2x teleconverter

This would probably become Canon's most expensive lens. The 200 f2.8 is $749. Bump that up one more stop and see how expensive it is - the 200 f2 is currently $5099!

The 300 2.8 is $4100. What do you think would happen to the price if you bumped that up to a 300mm f2? It wouldn't be pretty. I think we'd have a lens that would cost between $11,000 and $14,000 - more than the 800mm 5.6

[jr_senator]

...a 300mm f2...would cost between $11,000 and $14,000...
And weigh a ton.

[Tom Reichner]

And weigh a ton.

Yes, it would weigh a ton.

GetOnMyLevel suggested this would be a good lens for birders, with a 2x converter. I'm curious as to why he thought that it would be good for that use.

The lens he suggests, a 300mm f2 with a 2x extender, would end up being 600mm f4. Hmmmmm. I thought we already had a 600mm f4. The 600mm f4 we already have available is about half the price that a 300 f2 would cost. Plus with the 300 f2 you'd have the 2x extender on there, which does come at a cost as far as IQ is concerned. So you'd spend twice as much to get poorer image quality. Plus it would be bigger and heavier than the 600. I just don't understand why anyone would think this is preferable to what we already have available.

[jr_senator]

And, if the thinking is to use , at times, also a 1.4x TC, a 400mm and 600mm lenses (f/4s) would be close to the cost of 300mm f/2.