Upload & Sell: On
My buddy didn't understand why I paid $2k for a 70-200 2.8 MKII, when I could get a 70-200 f/4 non-IS like his for $500. And I said "well, even though it's heavy and expensive, for my shooting needs, this is able to replace my 85mm 1.4, 135mm f/2, 70-200 f/4, and in a pinch can perform well with TC's, replacing my 300 f/4". This same logic applies for many with the 200-400 IMO, only on a larger fiscal scale.
It seems like many owners of the 200-400 don't look at it as such a big financial hit, because they were able to sell 2-3 highly priced lenses because of the acquisition of the 200-400. It's 3+ tools in one for many people. But- for those who don't need all the benefits the 200-400 provides, then yea, it doesn't make sense no matter what it costs.