Quote Originally Posted by Chris White


Tony, I stand corrected, I thought the 24-70 (2002) was three or four years newer than the 70-200 2.8 IS (2001). I spent so much time comparing the 24-70 vs. the 24-105 (2005) I confused the release dates of the two. It does make sense that new and reworked L's will incorporate IS. But as much as I (and many others) would like the 24-70 IS, I think countering some gaps with Nikon -- like their 200-400 f/4 are more of a priority to Canon than our desires.





I personally would LOVE a 200-400 like nikon's. Canon is lacking a bird lens between the $1700 100-400mm and the $6000 500mm. a $4500 (I'm dreaming) 200-400 would be nice, but there's not a lot of market for that lens. Nikon has sold less than 10,000 of them. Canon could do better copying Nikon's 14-24 2.8, so FF users could have a nice pro wideangle zoom. *phews* getting off topic here...


brendan