*UPDATE* The Big White Lenses [CR2.5]

[/dev/null]

As far as my limited knowledge in lens optics goes, 400mm / 5.6 = 71.4mm, so it should be possible to make this lens with 77mm thread size. If I should guess, such a lens would be too expensive for me to buy.

As for an EF 100-300mm f/4, my point is it would directly compete with other Canon lenses. If price was not an issue, why would one prefer an EF 70-200mm f/4 over the EF 100-300mm f/4 ? Same on the longer side - why prefer an EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6, if you can buy an EF 100-300mm f/4 + EF II 1.4x ?

The size, weight and price should be similar to the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. The same goes for the filter size. By adding a 2x TC, you already get this range of focal lengths and apertures, so an optimized design should be more compact and lighter and, hopefully with better IQ that the 2x TC combination.

The only lens in direct competition is the old 100-400 f/5.6. A 200-400 f/5.6 would be a replacement for that lens. The price would be much higher than the 70-200 f/4, so no direct competition there.

Why buy a 100-300 f/4 plus 1.4x TC instead of a 200-400 f/5.6: Hopefully better IQ. Following that argument: Why would anybody buy a 100-300 f/4 instead of a 70-200 f/2.8? Why would anybody buy a 600 f/4 prime instead of a 400 f/2.8 plus 1.4x TC?...

 

[Freeze_XJ]

Well, unless it easily beats the old 70-200 f/4, on price as well as quality, i don't think it'll be a big seller. There's the 55-250 from below, and the 70-200 bunch from above making this a highly unlikely lens. Especially because people tend to pay for that red ring.
Besides, i do think the medium zoom part is covered well by now. 55-250, 70-200, 70-300, what more can you want? Ofcourse, a long telezoom The 100-400 is waiting to be replaced (or not), and the other consumer-end teles aren't the newest either. The problem is probably Nikon not having anything in response either. Their 300 f/4 is as old as Canons (and performs quite similar), their 80-400 is getting more than enough flak, and only Sigma is saving their *ss with some of their telezooms. Nevermind the fresh 300 f/2.8, 200-400 f/4 or other things priced well beyond mere mortals, John Sixpack who wants to shoot his safari proper, and amateur bird photogs determine this segment. And they're left in the cold, now

@dev/null : why use a 600f/4 over a TC-ed 400 f/2.8? Image quality. Teleconverters reduce quality, and yes it still matters... It will matter even more a few years from now.

 

[/dev/null]

@dev/null : why use a 600f/4 over a TC-ed 400 f/2.8? Image quality. Teleconverters reduce quality, and yes it still matters... It will matter even more a few years from now.

Thanks for making my point.

 

[muteteh]

The new 100-300 f/4 could replace the 70-300 f/4-5.6, which IIRC some people on this site said wanted upgraded. That way, APS-C bodies would have the EF-S 55-250mm added the kit, and FF bodies (such as 5DmkII with the 24-105mm f/4 kit) have the new 100-300 f/4 added.

I think this would still make the lens compete with the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6, unless a - IMHO likely - upgrade makes it competitive. Say Canon could release a replacement which would compete with Sigma's 150-500mm F/5-6.3 APO DG OS HSM, say EF ?-500mm f/4-5.6L IS USM.

[Well, it's pure speculation, but I would buy that EF ?-500mm f/4-5.6L IS USM, if it's priced under U.S.$2,500 where I live, but I still prefer that EF 7.5m circular fisheye, whether it's f/0.7 H-IS USM with 8 rounded blades aperture diaphragm, or just f/4 micro-USM with 6 straight blades aperture diaphragm.]