Why no EF 200 2.8L IS?

Basically an updated version of this with IS?

(No need for the super-bulky/expensive 200 F2L IS.)

I think lot more would buy 400mm f5.6 IS but canon still won't make it. So I wouldn't wait for IS on these other primes.

I had the 200 2.8 prime for a while. Compared to my 70-200 2.8, the photos they produced, obviously at 200mm, were, for all intents and purposes, identical. So I sold the prime.

I recently bought the 200 2.0. Being a stop faster, and having other color and resolving advantages, it really is a different lens.

So, since Canon makes the 70-200 2.8 version 2 IS.....what would be the point in updating the 200 2.8 prime ? If anything, I could see them simply dropping it from the lineup.

Isn't there a 70-200 f/2.8L IS already? And two of them!

imo there are far more important upgrades Canon needs to make:

85 f/1.2L IS
35 f/1.4L IS
135 f/2L IS
14-24 f/2.8L IS
180 f/3.5L IS
400 f/5.6L IS

Gimme those and I'll be a happy man

smorter wrote in post #11637431
imo there are far more important upgrades Canon needs to make:

35 f/1.4L IS
14-24 f/2.8L IS

Really? Do you need Image stabilization for a 35mm lens? or even a 14-24mm lens?

Well I guess I must be unusual in that I can't handhold them at 1/5 secs?

smorter wrote in post #11638146
Well I guess I must be unusual in that I can't handhold them at 1/5 secs?

At 35mm? I'd say so.

I guess it could come in handy if you wanted to shoot landscapes at dusk and you stop the lens down and you dont have a tripod on hand

Why no IS? Because it's not needed with this lens. The 200mm 2.8 is probably my favorite lens. Outside of its great IQ, the fact that it's compact and light make it desirable. Sure, if it had IS, that would be nice, but at what cost? Being that the 200mm 2.8 is in my opinion the most fairly priced L prime, I believe the cost would double if it had IS. Instead of adding IS to the 200mm, Canon would be far better off adding IS to the 400mm 5.6. They should also consider a 500mm 5.6 or even 6.3 with IS. As Smorter said... "there are far more important upgrades Canon needs to make."

gotaudi wrote in post #11638230
I guess it could come in handy if you wanted to shoot landscapes at dusk and you stop the lens down and you dont have a tripod on hand

Then you aren't a serious landscape shooter, IMHO.

Ya, I think putting IS on it would take it out of the desirable price point it's at today into the less desirable +$1k range...

bobbyz wrote in post #11638580
Then you aren't a serious landscape shooter, IMHO.

there it is hahaha..... I was just tryig=ng to see a use for it on such a lens... I think under 100mm you dont really need IS but thats just me.

ken2000ac wrote in post #11638220
At 35mm? I'd say so.

How about this: if you can show me a handheld shot at 35mm at 1/4 seconds (which is attainable with a 4 stop IS system), which is sharp, and can prove stabilisation was not used, I'll send you $50 via paypal. No joke.

EDIT: Actually I will send you my 35L lens cause clearly you can put it to better use than I can

bobbyz wrote in post #11638580
Then you aren't a serious landscape shooter, IMHO.

Please, dazzle us with your incredible landscape photos...

It's ridiculous to suggest that IS is not needed on lenses less than 100mm, or similar.

Is it because you have rock solid hands that mean you can handhold a 35mm lens at 1/4 seconds or something (which is attainable with IS)? Well, sorry, but the vast majority of photographers can't

Because you have a magical tripod that you can pull out of your rear anytime you need stabilization?

Because you have a magical levitating tripod that lets you use a tripod anywhere in the world?

Because all pros use tripods?

Wide angle lenses are typically used stopped down, so they need IS even more than telephoto lenses.