Yes, but that was back in the day (20 years ago) when few pro's would
consider that a zoom lens would be their primary lens. I just checked
the Canon Museum and interestingly enough, the first-generation 200/2.8
was introduced 2 years after the zoom, so maybe it was introduced due to
disappointment with the zoom. Though I've been quite happy with mine.
I also just noticed that the EF 135/2 wasn't introduced until 1996, so
Canon's only EF 135 for almost 10 years was the 135 Soft-Focus? They
really were relying on the 80-200 L for their reputation. I'm going to
have to figure out the time-line of EF lens releases. I'll bet there
are some interesting things there.
I've also never figure out why Canon didn't just remount more FD optics,
they certainly did that for a bunch of lenses. The big glaring missing
lens for nearly 10 years (until the launch of the EF 17-35mm f/2.8L
zoom) was the 17mm. Why would Canon redesign the 17mm f/4 SSC to the
New FD 17mm f/4 (there must have been a market) but not bring it forward
to an EF.
Mr. Bill
Willem-Jan Markerink wrote:
Well, both ordinary/old 200/2.8 and 80-200/2.8 have existed together
at one point in time, and there even was a mark-2 200/2.8 (only
different hood (separate instead of build-in/sliding)).
So that is not an argument....;))
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
