Thanks for the thoughts guys.

I had the 100 f2 but sold it recently - I tried it but always went back to the 85 after reviewing the results. With the 85, I end up doing quite a bit of cropping for across the court shots. I don't like the noise w ISO above 3200 on the 5DMKIII - even w noise reduction you just lose too much sharpness before the fuzz is reduced. The shutter speed is a variable you can play with - I shoot the 70-200 f2.8 II at 1/500 (gains a stop on the 1.2 at 1/1000, but you still have 1.5 stops to throw into the ISO to break even). You'd be surprised how much shutter speeds below 1/1000 compromise sharpness in eyes and hair when athletes are jumping.

Dr. Croubie has a good option too if 135 at 1.4 won't float - a 100 mm f1.4L would be a good option - not quite perfect for cross the court shots but a good compromise.

I love the f2-2.5 50-150 idea too.

Other L wishes from me would include building in the 1.4 tele to the current 600mm f 4.0L II (I have this on order) - if this is a good idea on the 200-400, it is a GREAT idea in the primes. Especially since the usual applications - sports & wildlife - mean that mounting the separate 1.4 tele is just too slow. I know it would add $$ and some weight, but once you've convinced yourself that a $13.5K lens is 'reasonable', adding $1K for the built-in tele is completely logical.

Another wish = 20-70 f2.8 II w performance of new 24-70 II - then I'd have the width I need for almost all indoor situation and landscape.

Hope Santa Canon is listening....