Who would buy a 135 / 2.8 IS?

Collett wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Canon has released some really nice lenses as of late in the form of the 24 / 2.8 IS, 28 / 2.8 IS, and 35 / 2 IS, the latter being, from what I can tell, the most popular. One can only hope that Canon will continue these updates by making a 20 / 2.8 IS, 50 / 1.4 IS (the 50 / 1.8 update is rumored to be an STM lens without IS), 85 / 1.8 IS, and 100 / 2 IS.

But would anyone have any interest in a 135 / 2.8 IS? I mean, it's a stop slower than the fantastic 135 / 2L and the same speed as a 70-200 / 2.8L IS II. So why a 135 / 2.8 IS? Well, it would be quite a bit smaller and lighter than the 135 / 2L (think 35 / 2 IS vs 35 / 1.4L) and have IS, but would likely cost about the same. I think for many, the differences in size and weight, along with IS, would matter more than the extra stop. For those that it wouldn't, Canon would still have the 135 / 2L (or Sigma, possibly, a 135 / 1.8A OS).

With regards to the 70-200 / 2.8L IS II, well, it would be way, way, way smaller, lighter, and less expensive. One could argue that a trio consisting of an 85 / 1.8 IS, 135 / 2.8 IS, and 200 / 2.8L IS (if Canon ever made such a lens) would be comparable in price to a 70-200 / 2.8L IS II, but be significantly smaller and lighter when mounted on the camera.

So, with that in mind, would anyone get a 135 / 2.8 IS at about the same price as a 135 / 2L?

Nope - F2 is what makes the 135L special to me and the F2 lens weight is nice as it stands. I also have the 100 F2.8Macro w/ IS, and between the 135L and 100L I have everything covered. I am guessing they will not come out w a F2 135 w/ IS, but if they did it would be NICE but cost as much as my 100L and 135L

...isn't f/1.4 what makes the 35 / 1.4L special?  Yet the 35 / 2 IS seems to be a rather popular alternative.  This is why I was thinking a 135 / 2.8 IS would be a popular alternative to the 135 / 2L.