200 mm IS: a hole in Canon lens line?

I've had the following lens lineup for my Canon 35mm and DSLR
cameras (all canon lenses):

24mm, 28-135 IS, 100-400 L IS, 500 f/4 L IS, + 1.4 and 2x TCs.

I always found the 100-400 soft. I could make fine 8x10 enlargements,
but not critically sharp larger ones. So, I replaced the 100-400
with a 300 f/4 L IS (very sharp). But now I have a hole from
between 135 and 300 mm. What I want is a 200 mm f/2.8 L IS lens,
which at present does not exist in the Canon lineup).
I've heard the 70-200 f/2.8 L is sharp, but what do you think?
How about the 200 f/2.8 non-IS?

Roger

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:

 > I've had the following lens lineup for my Canon 35mm and DSLR
 > cameras (all canon lenses):
 >
 > 24mm, 28-135 IS, 100-400 L IS, 500 f/4 L IS, + 1.4 and 2x TCs.
 >
 > I always found the 100-400 soft. I could make fine 8x10 enlargements,
 > but not critically sharp larger ones. So, I replaced the 100-400
 > with a 300 f/4 L IS (very sharp). But now I have a hole from
 > between 135 and 300 mm. What I want is a 200 mm f/2.8 L IS lens,
 > which at present does not exist in the Canon lineup).
 > I've heard the 70-200 f/2.8 L is sharp, but what do you think?
 > How about the 200 f/2.8 non-IS?

Roger, the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS VERY sharp, but because for the types of
photography I shoot, I use a wider lens (use the 18-55), and 100mm f/2.8
macro USM I bought the 200 f/2.8 USM for some wildlife shots. I took a "quick
pic" with it recent right after I got it, just to "check it out" - VERY
gloomy winter day. The shot is hand held with just a UV filter. Sending it
via private cover.

Fred

--
"...Linux, MS-DOS, and Windows XP (also known as the Good, the Bad, and
the Ugly)."<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->