Re the Sigma good or bad debate:
I (still) have a 120-400mm from them, it's not very sharp at 400mm.
I also have a 120-300mm OS from them, and it's sharp enough, and still fares well with a 2X TC on. My only real complaint with it is the background OOF highlight circle can get very busy and this has ruined a few shots that should have been excellent - a crane fishing in a pond.
The IS also seems clumsy to activate, because often the first picture in a series is shake-blurred. Remembering to let the OS (IS) spin up before you start taking photos helps of course.
5.6 is too slow for a prime....... like the 800-5.6?
f/5.6 is fine for 800mm because you already have a narrow enough angle of view for birds. 400mm users would like to pop on a teleconverter while retaining AF.
Trying to track birds at 600mm and up is quite punishing but I find that 400mm is (even on a crop like the 7D) at or even below the bare minimum to get detail on anything but a raptor or a flock of birds. For single birds, especially small ones, I need that 600mm and a much closer minimum focus distance than 3.5M which is quite terrible actually.
The 400 F5.6 sells for $1350 in Canada. To get a longer Canon lens you have to be ready to shell out $9690. That's a HUGE jump in price.... and I'd be willing to bet that there is a market for something in between, like a 600 F5.6.
A 600mm f/5.6L would cost at least US$7,500. But a 500mm f/5.6L might come in under US$4,000.
It won't get made because they want to sell and make only 500mm f/4L lenses.