The 17 is a recent lens though and the 200-400 is something new with the built-in TC and 400mm performance like the old 400 2.8 version and the 70-300L is the best such small tele-zoom with that range out there, and the 24-70 II takes on the 24 1.4 II at 24mm when all the older ones were mush city at 24mm on FF edges and this one is just about APO. The 24-70 f/4 IS is the smallest little standard zoom with some macro ability that delivers pretty decent 24mm FF edges. 100L has hybrid macro IS.
The 55-250 STM is said to be pretty amazing for the size, weight, price.
I would personally like to see a cheaper & lower build quality version of the 70-300L with similar optics. A proper update of the non-L 70-300 IS USM, in other words... Reason being that there are virtually no EF-mount telephoto zooms that are both short, light, and sharp. You either have to go long with the 70-200 f/4L, heavy with the 70-300 f/4-5.6L, or long&heavy with the 70-200 f/2.8. It would be nice to see short & light like the 70-300 non-L, but with the optics of the L. It is pretty evident from the 70-300L's design that a lot of the size and weight is from the high quality build; while the build is good, I'd like to see a lighter less obtrusive design as well.
The 55-250 STM is a good example of light build + great optics, but it will not mount on full frame. I don't like the plastic mount though, that is a bit TOO cheap
Canon says, "If you can afford a FF body, you can afford an L-series telezoom." Not saying that I agree, but everyone who fills out the online registration for a lens gives them data on lenses and bodies owned, and income level.
I'd make some joke about Canon sharing that information with the NSA but the NSA probably already watch it go by.
Strange thing about salary is that everyone thinks that putting in the right information is good because it is a "See, look at how much I make, aren't I good!"
Never tell the truth with surveys.