I think they tell us who this is for in the release - travel photographers. This is a fantastic lens for the baby boom demographic who hop aboard cruise ships or jet off to Paris, have a great deal of disposable income, want the best they can get in their camera bag...with one caveat: Weight. The 2.8 IS version is excellent, but I have seen a number of 50+ men with a lot of disposable income scoff at the notion of hauling it around. And I've never seen an older lady hauling the 2.8 IS (though I sure it has happened somewhere).
The f4 IS version, at just a tad over the weight of the non-IS version, will see its popularity with folks who are serious travellers first, and photographers second, I should think.
I think the price makes sense, and am amazed at the small package. It's a nice complement to a 24-105, and about at the same price point. The 70-200 f4 non-IS was the cheapest L out there, so we can hope but not expect that it's price point is replicated.
I'm not sure why the big surprise at the price. Sure, I'd love the price to be $800, but that wasn't happening. The difference of the two non-IS versions is about $500. I'm sure after the initial rush, the difference between the two IS versions will be about the same as well.
Personally, I'm pretty excited about this lens. I don't shoot sports so I don't need the 2.8. At least it appears the IQ is just as good (if not better) than the non-IS version. Weight/Size is exactly the same. Weather sealing... I really couldn't have asked for more.
For those complaining about the price I say just because you can't afford it does not make it overpriced. Demand will determine whether or not they are at the correct price point. And they are not often wrong!
I just can't believe people are whining about the price. Get over it and quit whining. I read for years about how people wanted a f/4L IS did they really think it was going to be cheap? This is exactly the price I said it would be the other day in one of my posts and it was about as easy
Canon makes money on lenses, not on bodies. The 24-105 was $1249 and I knew this would be the same. It's not about manufacturing cost, it's about what Canon can charge. With the worthless US peso, every new lens will go up significantly.
As for whethere it's worth it, I think I'll stick with my 2.8 IS.
In Europe the 24-105/4 IS is about 950 euro if the 70-200/4 IS will be 1000 euro or less it's worth it for me. That's about 800 euro's below the 70-200/2.8 IS which is too big and too heavy for me anyway
You don't have to be able to afford it to recognise value. How many won't bother to save up the extra because it doesn't seem worth it?
The 50/1.2 has certainly split opinions but by no stretch of any imagination can this be called value when the difference is even much greater than the more expensive 2.8 version. Amongst all of Canons decisions over the last couple of years, the pricing of this lens is the most confusing. The price differential is without precedent in Canons own range and Nikon, I'm sure we can agree is hardly a crap brand, charge a reasonable extra premium for its VR. But this.........
I guess they didn't want to undercut the 2.8 by too much. 4 stops IS - maybe this has something to do wth Sony claming 3 stops for their system. I'm pretty disappointed with the price too.
I guess Canon can claim to be the "guys who listen" as a lot of people wanted this lens, but I think when they were saying that they were looking for a bargain over the 2.8. The Weight is a genuine advantage though.
I'm suprised that everyone is so suprised about the price Canon's pricing formula seems to have changed over the last few years - and I can't say that I blame them. A company should price their products in order to maximize their total profits. And I haven't noticed that Canon lens sales have slowed because of high prices. I mean the 24-105 F4 is priced right in line with this lens and I believe it sells very well - and so will this lens. Because of the prosumer digital SLRs, Canon, Nikon et all have a whole new set of customers who are willing to pay considerably more for camera equipment - And think about it, it is not just camera equipment that people will whip out their credit cards for. I feel confident that the only reason they updated this lens is because they felt it was underpriced. I am now thinking that when they update the 100-400 IS that it will sell for $2000. Oh well, you have to pay to play now.
Its all that extra cash we have laying around from not purchasing/developing film. That money is going out of Fuji & Kodak's pockets right into Canon's!
Johno wrote:
I'm disappointed with the cost. Dunno how they can justify the price of this over the Non IS. Pretty shocking really!
Maybe they're trying not to seriously annoy the suckers *cough* I mean customers that JUST bought a non-IS f/4 recently *cough cough* by creating a distinct price gap. This might limit the immediate price crash on the non-IS f/4. Add to this that we all know street price will be lower than the price in this announcement. What really cheezes me off is that all Canadian vendors seem to feel that the tripod ring is worth $229. The ring should be included (particularly for the new price) or at least be a lot cheaper.
So much for counting on slow and easy depreciation on quality L glass This is probably the single worst announcement that could come out to devalue my kit except maybe a 16-35 2.8LmkII for $700.
Canon's pricing formula seems to have changed over the last few years - and I can't say that I blame them. A company should price their products in order to maximize their total profits. And I haven't noticed that Canon lens sales have slowed because of high prices. I mean the 24-105 F4 is priced right in line with this lens and I believe it sells very well - and so will this lens. Because of the prosumer digital SLRs, Canon, Nikon et all have a whole new set of customers who are willing to pay considerably more for camera equipment - And think about it, it is not just camera equipment that people will whip out their credit cards for. I feel confident that the only reason they updated this lens is because they felt it was underpriced. I am now thinking that when they update the 100-400 IS that it will sell for $2000. Oh well, you have to pay to play now. 
