200-400 f2.8??

I'm loving my 200-400 f4.0 but at times I do miss the 2.8. Why couldn't have they done this at 2.8 vs 4.0? Was it a technological issue or cost issue? Would the 2.8 zoom in this range be that much bigger than the fixed 400 2.8? It would be a killer lens if they could ever figure it out...

Sigma 200-500mm f/2.8 EX DG APO IF……………..Size & cost !……..The weight would def be a killer .

CORPY wrote in post #16506920
Sigma 200-500mm f/2.8 EX DG APO IF……………..Size & cost !……..The weight would def be a killer .

Sounds like this lens is your friend.

the 142mm filter size... and weight/size of the optics

wonder how much canon would charge for such a beast...

Compare size and weight of 200/2.8 against the 70-200/2.8s. 70% heavier if you compare the EF 200mm f2.8L II against the 70-200/2.8 non-IS.

If this scales up, then you are looking at a 200-400/2.8 that is 70% heavier than the 400/2.8 or almost 15 pounds. I don't think that weight will go down very well with users.

How about the $25,000 price tag? Jeez, I can't afford a 400 2.8.

Higher ISO capabilities of camera bodies. Between the two, f/2.8 will have slightly more separation and bokeh. However, Canon making a f/4.0 and charging what they do, equals many, many more profits for them.

The choice was for profits IMHO.

The Sigma 200-500/2.8 weighs about 35 lbs (15.7kg) and costs $26,000. I imagine that a Canon 200-400/2.8 would probably cost more, and perhaps weigh a bit less. The Sigma doesn't have IS, but I cannot imagine too many people hand-holding it.