Appreciate the comments but they're off the mark here. Not sure if you've used both lenses (or if you had a faulty copy) but the 200mm is easily as good as the 70-200 for AF. For both stationary and moving subjects it snaps into focus immediately with no hesitation and extreme accuracy on all my bodies. I have dozens of super sharp action shots from the 1D + 200mm f/2.8 taken under challenging conditions which will attest to that.

Besides, even if you were right and it wasn't as good, you don't honestly think that a sports / L lens from Canon should have trouble AI Servo focusing on a slow moving marathon runner in bright light? My conclusion about the 1D's AF performance in bright sunlight was overall positive but I think it's very obvious that the AF issues in sunlight are camera related. You'll find this is consistent with other detailed reports / reviews.

Coming back to the 200mm, I use and prefer this lens over the 70-200 purely for convenience (it's significantly smaller / lighter) but on performance (AF / sharpness) it's at least as good if not better.

You can read dozen's of other owners of this lens who attest to the same thing: http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=37&sort=7&cat=2&page=1

You can check my images from the review here – a number of which were taken with the 1D + 200mm:

http://www.lawrenceripsher.com/blog/2008/01/canon-1d-mark-7.html

In addition, the wakeboarding images I shot the following week were also with this camera / lens combo:

http://www.lawrenceripsher.com/blog/2008/01/singapore-cable.html

I don't normally go on about a lens this long – but thought it necessary in this case to correct the innaccuracies in your comment.