Something between 16-35L and 24-70L?

[phox]

But if we are just wishful thinking here, I wish for a 70-200/4 IS or a 200/2.8 IS long before I wish for an additional wide zoom.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=64973\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This is an interesting discussion on its own.

I think Canon doesn't make a 70-200/4L IS because it would be only a stop off the 70-200/2.8L IS (including IS "stops"), and thus they feel it would eat too much market share.

As for a 200/2.8, I wouldn't bother, probably.  IS = more elements = less image quality, in the typical case.  True, they've somehow pulled off *not* doing that in the case of lenses like the 300/2.8L IS, but the 200/2.8 is a sub-$700 lens, so either the price or the image quality would suffer, I'd think.  I didn't wait to see if a 135/2L IS came out, because I figured nothing was going to appear at the same price/image quality point any time soon.

[jani]

As for a 200/2.8, I wouldn't bother, probably.  IS = more elements = less image quality, in the typical case.  True, they've somehow pulled off *not* doing that in the case of lenses like the 300/2.8L IS, but the 200/2.8 is a sub-$700 lens, so either the price or the image quality would suffer, I'd think.

The price would be the easiest sacrifice.

Nikon has pulled off a good one with their 200mm f/2.0 VR lens, but I don't know whether it's good enough for full frame 135 format (even though it's not a DX lens). A similar product from Canon is over due, I think.

[macgyver]

The price would be the easiest sacrifice.

Nikon has pulled off a good one with their 200mm f/2.0 VR lens, but I don't know whether it's good enough for full frame 135 format (even though it's not a DX lens). A similar product from Canon is over due, I think.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=65076\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I agree with that, sure the 200 1.8 didn't sell enough for them to keep making it, but just look at the resale prices...somebody wants one.

(other than me)