Actually, I think it more likely that the 200/2.8 II might get IS, rather than any of the macro lenses. That would make a ton of sense and that lens would become a lot more useful for folks with crop sensor cameras. An update of the IS on the 300/4 and finally adding it to the 400/5.6 would be two other really good possibilities!

There does appear to be a more effective IS version out now, even leaving aside the “hybrid” talked about in the press release… The more recent lenses intoduced with it seem to be rated for a good four stops or so worth of assistance from the current generation of IS (70-200/4, 200/2 and 800/5.6). Earlier generations of IS were rated for two to three stops. So I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see updates of some of the premium lenses that already use it, incorporating a revised IS but largely leaving the optical designs alone. The likely candidates include the 70-200/2.8 IS, 300/2.8, 400/4 DO, 400/2.8, 500/4 and 600/4.

Now, if it were a dual purpose lens being used a lot for non-macro shooting, that might be different. The 100mm is somewhat of a dual purpose lens, in the current USM version and with the focus limiter engaged it focuses quickly enough to double as a moderate tele or portrait lens at non-macro distances. But, it’s also not difficult to hand hold, particularly as higher ISOs continue to improve in the cameras.

About the only reason the current 100mm f2.8 isn’t already “blessed” with L status is that it just doesn’t need the exotic glass, which is one of Canon’s criteria for and definitions of an L lens. Painting a red stripe on the front of the 100mm won’t improve it’s image quality one bit. It’s already a fine lens and Canon really needs to focus their attention elsewhere, but will most probably just come out with more zooms since that’s what consumers tend to want and where they make the most sales.

The 180mm f3.5 macro is already a fine lens, too, although it’s not very dual purpose due to it’s slower auto focus even when you properly use the focus limiter switch. That’s pretty hard to overcome since there will always need to be a lot of travel to focus the lens from 1:1 to infinity, and I really can’t imagine that a 200/3.5 would be any better.

Well, we didn’t hear anything this week, but will soon enough.

and if you fire off a quick burst you can often get at least one frame centered well within the DOF for still shots so IS would help some since for those shots that work in/out they will be crisp

That would be nice though, trying to take some macro movies the other day and sometimes it is too hard to track and follow bugs on a tripod but hand-held the screen does move around a little too much IS (the new type that is) might help a real lot with that.