Rather surprised by this one. I mean, I fully expect the 100-400 replacement this year--it's long overdue. But I expected it to be a 100-400 F4-5.6. A 70-400 is a bit out of left field. On the one hand, I can see how an extra 30 at the wide end will have a bigger impact on framing than an extra 50 at the long end would. And I get how it matches better with the 24-70 and competes with the 80-400 from Nikon. But still, if I was going to have to pay a weight/size penalty, I'd MUCH rather it be at the long end! If I'm putting a long lens on, it means I'm trying to catch something very distant, or moderately distant, and very tiny, like a bird. I'd sooner see a 100-450, or +1 on preferring a 100-500 or 150-500 lens. Or for that matter, simply the 100-400 F4-5.6 that was previously rumoured--same range, and slightly faster at the narrow end.
I spend most of my time at 400 with my current 100-400 installed, often only zooming out to acquire the subject, before zooming out again. Any time I do need to stay zoomed out, I generally find the 100 is either sufficient, or I'm grabbing my second body with a shorter lens. I rarely ever long for a wider fov on my 100-400....but I FREQUENTLY wish I had even more reach!
Whatever the final format, I fully expect the 100-400 replacement to be much sharper than the current, and thus a worthwhile upgrade. That being said, if it comes out at 70-400, I'd be buying it in spite of the fact that it starts at 70....not because it starts at 70. It will be wasted weight and bulk, as far as I'm concerned. I'd rather have the extra weight put into a slight aperture improvement, or an improvement at the long end...and I suspect that might be the general consensus for most current users of the 100-400!