I actually prefer 28mm to 35 as a replacement for a 50mm lens on a 1.6x
crop body. But, to the point, there's an existing 28mm 1.8 and while it
isn't great, it ain't bad either for the price, and its abberations
really only show themselves on full frame.

I think the EF-S primes they need to focus on (pardon the pun) would be
a 21mm/2.0 and a 15mm spherical 2.0. If you need anything from a 50mm
equivelant onward, you're in fine shape with existing lenses. Hell,
even for a 35mm replacement, the 20mm/2.8 could be plenty worse. But
using the existing 15mm fisheye as a 24mm replacement is less than
ideal. If they want to make EF-S primes, the wide end would be the
place to start.

But I view my 20d as a stopgap and I don't buy cropped glass. Looking
forward, I'm more looking to see them develop something like a 35mm/1.8
USM and a 24mm/2.0 USM. Those plasticy 24/2.8 and 35/2.0 lenses are too
cheap and lack USM, and the L lenses are too expensive and more than I
need. This, if you ask me, is the big gap in the Canon lineup. Those
two lenses, and a plasticy 85mm/2.0 or 2.8 would offer a complete lens
lineup, complete with Consumer, Prosumer, and Professional 24, 35, 50,
and 85mm lenses, which I view as crucial to satisfy all basic needs at
all pricepoints. In this way, I think the 50/1.2 was a good move, as it
fills the need for a weather-sealed, pro-quality 50mm prime. If you
don't need weather sealing, that extra fraction of a stop likely
doesn't sell it for you, but I imagine there's a market for this new
lens and I was glad to see it.

Will

Doesn't that technique generally result in vignetting from
angle-of-incidence problems?  Or have microlenses basically solved
that?

Who said anything about making them L quality?

They don't have to be weather sealed, they don't need to have the same
build quality, they don't need the constant aperture, and they don't
need to have IS either.

They just need to be reasonably sharp wide open with IF and ring USM to
make them fully functional.

The picky amateurs and pros can buy the L glass, and the consumers can
buy less expensive versions that are sharp but don't need to stand up to
the rigors of daily pro use.

Canon seems to think that just because it's a consumer lense, it doesn't
need to be sharp. I know that a lot of users have just the kit lense and
only print 4x6's. But even so the images are soft and I know some users
have complained that a $1000 camera has worse images than the $300 P&S
they used before - and it's sad to say they're right.

At least Nikon makes some consumer zooms that are sharp and usable.
They've also made a few dogs, but in general the consumer lenses from
Nikon are better than Canon.

What's the big deal? I hold my camera the same way, using my thumb and
middle finger to zoom. I use my index finger to adjust focus if needed.
Very simple and easy to do.

Since focus adjustment is just a touch of the focus ring, I don't need
broad focus control - the autofocus usually nails it first time anyway.

The 70-200 f/4 L costs about the same as the 70-300 IS, so if you're
considering the 70-300 then you can afford the f/4. But it depends on
your needs.

The image quality alone is worth the zoom range difference. Add the
build quality, faster focus motor, and you have a killer lense - one of
the sharpest and best performing zooms you can buy.

If image quality is not your primary concern, then the 70-300 IS lense
is a good choice since it covers a bigger zoom range and the IS allows
easier handholding at the long end.