I max out at 200mm with the 70-200 f/2.8 II and have been holding out for a 100-400 II which will come eventually, probably in the not too distant future would be my guess. I can wait however so no major problem either way.
Now we know Canon is coming out with the 200-400, and while it will be horrifically expensive I could swing it. I'm looking to use a longer lens for wildlife photography.
So I've not used any of the L telephotos, any thoughts on these choices versus any of their other tele's from folks more experience than me? Consider issues such as weight, usability (short and long focal lengths), etc. Thanks for your thoughts!
The 200-400 is fairly certain. The fate of the 100-400 is unknown.
If weight is of course stay away from the long glass - 400F2.8, 500F4, 600F4, 200-400F4, and maybe even the 300F2.8
All are very sharp and expensive.
Compromises might be the 300F2.8 (repeating myself) or the 400DO which sharpens up well.
For lighter class the 100-400 (current version) has mixed reviews and variation lens to lens. Or consider the 70-300L, great lens, light weight but a bit shorter, and finally consider the 400F5.6. Light weight but no IS.
Wait (for Godot) for replacement for the 100-400 (if it comes) or an update to the 400 F5.6. All seem reasonable that Canon would replace so consider them definite maybes.
Bottom line is do you want long fast glass. Then you will lighten your wallet and weigh down your camera bag. If you can accept slower glass (perhaps not as sharp, but never-the-less good), look for a good copy of the 100-400, 70-300L (not quite as long) or the 400 F5.6