...Canon introduces a lens twice as expensive (current street price) as a similar lens, with less focal length and as yet undetermined quality. When enough people rush in to pay what Canon demands, the bean counters are going to say to themselves: "Hey, we price this thing $400 more than we should, but people buy them anyway. Guess we should price all future lenses really, really high!" On the other hand, if all Canon hears is, as you call it, moans and complains, maybe, just maybe, they will be more realistic next time they try to price their products into the stratosphere.Yes! +1 ... the market suffers a lot from the unconditional early adopters that will pay whichever price. Mind it, I don't consider early adopters that (as correctly depicted by Rienzphotoz) either want or actually NEED the product (I'm sure it was the case for many with the 5DmIII!) 'crazy', at all!. Every one has their reasons behind their purchases... many would be working photographers that can pay off the higher price tag with a few jobs, others may be really wealthy and price is not an issue at all. But I believe its a fact that introductory prices are over-inflated because of those type of buyers which affects the overall price of the product (and, in some degree, allows for lesser innovation or poorer design as a product will still make a profit and sell like hotcake, be it the next wonder or not).
Thanks friends for all the support! Thanks specially @roguewave ... and, by the way: who are you? (I couldn't find a PM system here to ask privately!)
ps. It appears the resolution quality of the lens is a bit bellow the f2.8 mII and a good 10% above the 24-105, lets see how it fares in real life pictures, but these early tests do show an improvement.