Looking at focal length alone, at 120-420mm f/2.8-4, it's an upgrade to the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6, trading substantial optical improvement and another stop or two of light for a big jump in weight (+2 lbs.?) and price (+$8,000?).
The 120-300 would be a great addition for higher end wildlife photography, useful for larger fauna and paired perhaps with the 600 f/4 TC for birds.
It might be too long for basketball - I'd still probably prefer the upcoming 70-200 II - but, as mentioned, it would be ideal for many Olympic sports, motor sports, baseball, etc.
I'd be tempted to replace my 100-400 with it, but the 100-400 is such an easy carry when hiking, with the added benefit of its borderline macro capabilities (1:2.6) and minimum focusing distance of 2.5'.
I'm a huge fan of the tele TCs, so I may have to grab it at some point.
David83 wrote:
Looks like it has the same back half as the 400/600. Should feel right at home with where the focus and function rings are. However that places the zoom ring toward the front of the lens.
Hopefully they managed to keep the weight similar to the Canon.
It’s completely identical which is suspicious, it may be a photoshop job.
Seems that these images are probably a PS of the 400TC. Unless they exactly replicated the rear of the lens and position of the rings from the 400TC. Very unlikely considering this lens also needs a zoom ring in there somewhere.
The photo of the name plate has no dimension to it like the real metal plate does with the lettering raised up.
Hopefully this is still going to be a real lens coming soon even if these images are fake.
