Why are there no 200-400mm or 200-500mm lenses?

I would think that this would be a great zoom range for many activities?

Is it the price? I know if Canon made a f4L version of one of these the price would be big. What type of speed would be best for a lense like this. Or does canon just prefer to let people use the 1.4 or 2X Extenders?

I know the Canon 70-200 versions are very popular, but when you want something longer you either have overlapping with the 100-400 or have to go with a prime.

After seeing threads about the 50-500 Bigma, it got me thinking.

OK - 200-400 is less that the oh-so-popular 100-400 L. And the 100-400 has an absolutely great range. Having used it, I can't see getting something that did less. Going out to 500 on a zoom would be nice, though I think the 100-400 and 70-200 f/2.8 IS are about at the reasonable limits for most people.

There are: Tamron made a 200-400mm lens and has just replaced it by a 200-500mm lens.

I would be interested in a 200-500mm lens. Are Tamron lenses any good?

If anyone has one of the 200-500 can they post some pictures at the wide and long end. Wide open and stopped down if thats not too much to ask.

Thanks

not to bag on the tamron 200-500 but it takes like a day and a half to go from 2-5 when zooming. at least that is what i noticed when i got to play with one in store.
it felt pretty good in my hands. it was light. but it was alot of turning to zoom.
did not snap any shots, just played with it so i cannot comment on anything else.
the 500 was nice that is for sure.

Monty

I'd like to see a 200-400 f/4 zoom, but I wouldn't really want to see a 200-400 any slower than that. Might as well have the whole 100-400 range in that case.

Nice focal lengths, but ugly lenses! I wouldn't even consider buying one of these they're so dumb looking. I personally like my lenses to be attractive and get great pics.