Hi Bill, As good as the EF 70-200 2.8L IS lens is a prime would be MUCH sharper with better contrast in particular. I owned and used an EF 70-200 2.8L for several years and when the IS version came out bought one. I'm here to tell you, the EF 70-200 2.8L/IS can't hold a candle to an EF 200 1.8L or EF 300 2.8L, not even close! For those who have shot with an EF 200 1.8L on slow chrome films or an EOS 1Ds you know what I'm talking about.
The market for a $1,500 EF 200 2.8L IS will be a LOT bigger than the market for a $4,000 EF 200 1.8L IS lens. That was the problem with the EF 200 1.8L, it was good but perceived as "old" even though it was and remains IMO the hottest Canon lens optically. DO is NOT a step up optically, it is a compromise designed to overcome certain issues with long lenses but it's not a compromise I'm willing to make optically. Rent a 400 DO and see for yourself, I think even the lackluster EF 400 2.8L mkI was a better lens the current EF 400 DO in terms of optical performance. I think the EF 50 1L had to go for the all the same reasons as the EF 200 1.8L and the design was even older if that's possible. I also think it was not well suited for a redesign using a rear focusing group driven by a USM ring motor. The only real complaint I had about the EF 50 1L's performance was the AF speed was terrible and I won't even go into the price! I'd welcome an EF 50 1.2L but only if it was built like a tank which is seems to be. But I haven't used one yet, my old EF 50 1.4USM is still doing the job and has yet to have any problems knock on wood! Cheers/Chip > > I'd find it very hard to believe that Canon would bring out a EF 200mm > f/2.8 L IS when the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS exists. I'll be > the first to agree that the prime lens will be a little > sharper, but the market for that lens would have to be very, > very small. > > Now, why they ever stopped producing the EF 200mm f/1.8 L is > a mystery to me. An IS version would be awesome, not that > I'd ever be able to cost-justify one. I'm not sure if it > needs, or I'd want the DO treatment, though. > > Can anyone explain why Canon stopped producing the EF 50mm > f/1.0 L? The > new f/1.2 just isn't a replacement and used versions of the > f/1.0 sell for more than $5,000. I'd think Canon might have > just upped the price and kept building a few. > > Mr. Bill > > * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
