Still, the lens I speak of does not exist. I was speaking about a 100-400 with a fixed F4 aperture. The lens you brought up is not that lens. It's missing the entire area between 100-200. Really? Do you guys just think the big whites are all interchangeable? Seriously? First someone says that the 100-400 is good enough that they don't need their 70-200, I stated that I, for one, cannot do without the faster aperture and would maybe consider a hypethetical 100-400 F4 providing that the price was within the reach of us regular people. And now you're telling me that the lens that I'm looking for already exists in the form of the 200-400 with built in 1.4 TC. Let's talk about this for a minute, while the 200-400 is yet another sweet lens that I would love to have, IT IS NOT A 70-200 2.8L IS II!!! It is insanely sharp and insanely expensive but that doesn't mean it will do what I need it to. It won't. While the 100-400 is a stop slower and lacking on the side end from 70-100, the 200-400 is still a stop slower and lacking in the entire zoom range of the 70-200!! This conversation started as a discussion on whether the 100-400 could replace the 70-200 and now you are suggesting that the 200-400 can replace the 70-200. That's like having a Land Rover and a Ferrari and saying that they are interchangeable just because they are both high caliber vehicles. Supercar, SUV! 70-200, 200-400. They can both fit beautifully together in my camera bag but neither one can replace the other. Period.
