Canon 100-300 2.8 L IS 1.4x

Canon 100-300 2.8 L IS 1.4x

Want.

That'd be awesome, but big and expensive. What would be your guess price tag...$8500....or do you think it would it sit next to the 2-4f4 price tag of $11,000?
The 300II sits at $6100 and your lens would be a markedly more complex design.

11k... but would be a hot seller like the 200-400 is

I would hope it would be more like $6,500.00-$7K (street)

Think SIGMA 120-300mm f/2.8,. only a little lighter. (Canon makes them lighter most of the time)

Sigma had this lens back in 2004,. I am amazed that Canon has not doe it yet.

EDIT, oh wait, your having the 1.4x inline like the 200-400mm? Now you've lost most of the buyers due to weight and cost IMHO. Yes, It would be more like $11K based on the exorbitant price of the 200-400mm. It would be almost the same size and weight.

IMHO the 200-400mm is extremely overpriced.
In fact the 200-400mm @ f/4 ( - the built in 1.4x) is virtually the exact same lens element math that one needs to make the SIGMA 120-300mm,. which costs less than half and weighs a good deal less to. The internal 1.4x is a cost weight booster to be sure.

I think a straight 100-300mm f2.8 IS (or 150-300) would be really popular, and would sell way more at, say $7500, than one with a built in 1.4x pushing $10K+. That would put them on the used market around the $5500+ price range.

And I bet it'd pair really well with the mark 3 extenders.
1.4x = 140-420mm f4 IS
2xIII = 200-600mm f5.6 IS

Sweet

I have a 70-300L with which I am extremely happy. I would much rather have 500mm or 600mm than 2 stops faster and MUCH larger and heavier at 300mm. One of the beauties of my lens is that it fits in a kit with other lenses so it's always available when needed. It doesn't have to have it's own case and require special planning.

The 1xx-300mm f/2.8 is really more of a sports lens,. yes people use the SIGMA for wildlife, but not nearly as much as the longer slower zooms.

When SIGMA released the 120-300mm f/2.8 is the mid 2000's, it was seen as a possible new favorite for all the 300mm f/2.8 prime shooters in the sidelines, giving the photographer a 300mm prime and a 70-200mm in one lens/body.

I actually own one of the SIGMA OS versions, it's fantastic for Soccer, football, etc.. and before the MkII 100-400mm came out, that's what i would use. On the big football fields I find that 400mm is used a lot more than I imagined.

In lower light the f/2.8 was also more an advantage before bodies like the 5D4 made boosting ISO something one need not worry about. Still If I was shooting more sports, I'd be using that 120-300mm more often.

funny... i got the 100-400 too for field sports.

I mean... it's the cheap way out lol.

I had a sigma 120-300

Honestly I was at 300 all the time. About 90% of my shots were 200-300 and at F/2.8 the sigma 120-300 was not all that great. Soft actually, so I sold it and got the 300 f/2.8. But this was first models that came out so not sure about newer models

I think your better off keeping a 70-200 or a 100-400 on a body and a big prime like a 300,400,500 an another.

My last eagle trip, the 70-200 never came out. I kept switching BT a 1.4 TC and just shooting at 300MM and they guys with the 500's had them sitting most of the time on the boat. Too much reach for what we were doing.

I just think 200MM is too short for most needs. I mean I know where im standing for compression with portraits with a 70-200. So to me its to short for sports and wildlife needs......100-400 is a better option. Tough to beat a 300 F/2.8 and a TC

One place I find 70-200 to be perfect for in sports is cross country. Depending on the course, you might be very close or need a bit of reach. I have shot meets with a 100-400 and it is a bit too much.