Often-overlooked Canon 200mm 2.8L

Great Bustard wrote:

J A C S wrote:

You had good light there. 200/2.8 without IS is not very useful to me.

You know, a wicked sharp 200 / 2.8L IS that worked well with 1.4x and 2x TCs would be just the ticket. That said, I don't see Canon updating that lens soon. I mean, they've new versions of their 70-200s and still not updated the 50 / 1.4, 85 / 1.8, and 100 / 2, or, perhaps, more to the point, they've not updated the 300 / 4L IS or 400 / 5.6L.

I don't think the 400/5.6 will ever get an update. That appeals to a pretty niche market, and the target audience that would take it over a 100-400 or 300/4+TC seems quite content with it as it is: simple and inexpensive.

I also don't see the 100/2 getting updated, chiefly because that's a weird FL on crop so an 85 will always sell better.

Part of the reason the other primes have been slow to get updates is because a lot of people favor the 70-200/2.8, 100-400, 85/1.4. Don't mistake my meaning - I agree that a light and modestly fast prime can best a heavy fast zoom or ultra-fast prime. I actually replaced my own 100-400L with a 300/4L IS. It just seems not a lot of marketers see it that way... especially not the bodybuilder wannabes at Sigma!

I do suspect we'll be seeing a new 50 and 135 soon, and I'd also bet some new DO lenses are in the works since I doubt Canon is willing to cede the Fresnel market to Nikon.