Quoted By:
Why in the hell would anyone want a variable aperture lens, especially one that costs $2,000? I assume wildlife photographers don't give a shit about low life capabilities but to argue that this is better than the 70-200 2.8...
Kind of surprised canon sells L glass with this characteristic. Keeps costs low I guess. Or maybe a 2.8 depth of field is so small at 400mm it's useless anyways? *shrug*
