100-300 f/2.8L IS would have been better than 200-400 f/4L IS...Thoughts?

I've been thinking about what would fill my needs as a dream lens and I've decided Canon missed the mark with the 200-400 f/4L. I have not used one and probably never will because it doesn't fit my shooting requirements. I believe a 100-300 f/2.8L IS with built in 1.4x TC would have been quite feasible and a much bigger seller. Of course that kind of lens from Canon would be $9k but, it just makes more sense to me. I think it would be the most versatile telephoto zoom ever produced. Other than birding, it would fit just about every long lens need out there. What do you guys think?

Bob

There are at least 5 different pro-level zooms that cover that zoom range, it would be completely redundant in their line-up.

5 x 70-200's
I believe 3 x xx-300's
100-400.

I like the idea! Even better, a 70-300 f/2.8 IS

The zoom/aperture range of the lens Bob describes would be 100-300 f/2.8 and 301-420 f/4.0.

well sigma has the 120-300 F2.8 OS HSM sports, just that the 1.4X you have to add it manually

TheAnt wrote in post #16431755
There are at least 5 different pro-level zooms that cover that zoom range, it would be completely redundant in their line-up.

5 x 70-200's
I believe 3 x xx-300's
100-400.

Knee-jerk reaction. Think about the possibilities with this lens. It could do more than any three other lenses in the same focal range. It would be the lens on the sidelines at all pro sports events. It's price would keep it from hurting sales of the less expensive, less capable options. It would absolutely rule the pro sports world and a lot of wildlife shooting. It would kill sales of the 200-400 f/4L though.

Bob

runninmann wrote in post #16431791
The zoom/aperture range of the lens Bob describes would be 100-300 f/2.8 and 301-420 f/4.0.

It would be 140-420 f/4.

Bob

Yes, I know you could use the teleconverter at 100 FL, but why would you? If you wanted 140 at f/4, I would imagine most would not use the converter to achieve that.

The point of my post was to point out to The Ant that this lens would not be redundant to any of those listed, by way of the zoom range, aperture and onboard extender.

runninmann wrote in post #16431813
Yes, I know you could use the teleconverter at 100 FL, but why would you? If you wanted 140 at f/4, I would imagine most would not use the converter to achieve that.

The point of my post was to point out to The Ant that this lens would not be redundant to any of those listed, by way of the zoom range, aperture and onboard extender.

Ok, I see what you did. Good point.

Bob

smorter wrote in post #16431790
I like the idea! Even better, a 70-300 f/2.8 IS

70-300 f2.8 L IS would be awesome for my motorsport uses

It would have to have the IQ and focus speed of the current 300 f2.8 and not weigh more than the prior gen 300 f2.8. If it could do all of that, I bet there would be a line to buy it, with me camping overnight in line.

Even a 200-300 f2.8 with the t/c at about $5-6K would be a heck of a lens.

buy the sigma 120-300mm f2.8 OS sport...it's a whole lot cheaper than canon would sell the same lens...

DreDaze wrote in post #16433063
buy the sigma 120-300mm f2.8 OS sport...it's a whole lot cheaper than canon would sell the same lens...

No, I've had many Sigma lenses over the years and their best lenses are not even close to the quality of the big Canon telephotos. I'm talking about a lens that would be a pro tog's workhorse. Additionally, the Sigma 120-300 Sport doesn't have a built in teleconverter. That built in TC is what would make the lens so incredible!

Bob

Hot Bob wrote in post #16433126
No, I've had many Sigma lenses over the years and their best lenses are not even close to the quality of the big Canon telephotos. I'm talking about a lens that would be a pro tog's workhorse. Additionally, the Sigma 120-300 Sport doesn't have a built in teleconverter. That built in TC is what would make the lens so incredible!

Bob

this one may be at least close to the old 300mm f2.8 IS:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=5​&APIComp=0

i feel like if canon were to do a lens like that, they'd price it even more than the 200-400mm