Am I being a Fool?

I miss my former 100-400, as I await the new 200-400, which may be ridiculously priced.

I use my 70-200 f2.8 IS II, more than any other lens. I have the 2x tc III that I use sparingly.

So why am I lusting after the 70-300L? I would like smaller size at times to carry around, the longer focal length.

Am I just being duplicative by getting one? I had the 70-300 DO few years back and wasn't a huge fan. Understand the new one 70-300L is a lot nicer.

Didn't want to title this help me pick a lens. But help.

It will be around $11000
http://www.petapixel.c​om …0mm-f4l-is-extender-1-4x/
I would add a little more and get the 400mm f2.8 II instead.

for what I shoot, I'd prefer the 500. I am quite intrigued by the zoom however. I owned the Nikon 200-400 but was not enamored by it. It was front heavy and I just didn't enjoy it. I think the 1.4 built in tc is a game changer however.

Wait for the 200-400. The built in 1.4 will be a game changer. Yes, it will be high $$ but it will be incredibly versatile and we've already seen enough prototype images to know the performance will be first rate.

Go for it! I have loved mine, it is a great multipurpose telephoto.

What are you shooting that you need the zoom?

The new 500 is very nice. Small & light enough to bring with me almost anywhere I go. Canon probably won't release the 200-400 untill 2020.

Tapeman wrote in post #15744483
The new 500 is very nice. Small & light enough to bring with me almost anywhere I go. Canon probably won't release the 200-400 untill 2020.

Sadly, you aren't too far off.

I wanted to wait for the 200-400 but I had to get something and I had a buyer for my old 400 Then I decided to go for the 400 II when a used one appeared on POTN.

Just do it, man! I'd be lost without my "dust pump" I still drool after the mythical beast mentioned above, but Canon seems to be dragging their feet on ANYTHING in the long glass and/or upper end crop body areas. So, I wouldn't sit around and twiddle.

70-300l = Nice

I had it but sold for the 70-200 mk 2... nice too but miss the range and the compactness

70-300mm F 4-5.6Lhard to beat for quality of image and size. Expensive yes, but IQ, and lowered recent price make it seem worth it.

MDJAK wrote in post #15744022
So why am I lusting after the 70-300L? I would like smaller size at times to carry around, the longer focal length.

I have the same thought. Have you decided to get the 70-300L?

I can't wait to see how the 200-400 pans out. But my wallet is already cringing just from the thought of it...

Bryan

Personally, I'd feel like the 70-300 was a waste if I had the 70-200II and a 2.0XIII (which, btw, I do happen to have). Obviously the 70-300 is a very nice and versatile lens, but honestly, it sounds like somebody might just be itching to buy new gear...simply for the sake of buying new gear lol.

MDJAK wrote in post #15744022
I miss my former 100-400, as I await the new 200-400, which may be ridiculously priced.

I use my 70-200 f2.8 IS II, more than any other lens. I have the 2x tc III that I use sparingly.

So why am I lusting after the 70-300L? I would like smaller size at times to carry around, the longer focal length.

Am I just being duplicative by getting one? I had the 70-300 DO few years back and wasn't a huge fan. Understand the new one 70-300L is a lot nicer.

Didn't want to title this help me pick a lens. But help.

]

c'mon man....buy 'em all .

seriously i've thought about the 70-300L. it's a mighty attractive lens especially if you travel, one reason i've stuck with f4 IS and kenko TC for so may years.