well some lenses are old and need a replacement. you know how old some of the canon lenses are? with todays technology there could be a huge jump in IQ. just look at the 70-200mm f2.8 IS II or the new 300mm f2.8 IS II lenses.
the current model was released in november 2006.
the EF 17-40mm is nearly 10 years old.
the EF 50mm f1.4 is 20 years old i think.
the EF 35mm f1.4 is from 1998.
the EF 300mm f4 IS is from 1997
the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L is from 2002.
the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS is from 1998
and these are lenses i sell a lot more often then 500mm or 600mm lenses. so to be honest... i think we all have waited long enough.... don´t you think?
This argument makes absolutely no business sense. Canon's quarterly (and yearly) revenue was down significantly because of many factors. It's goal is to make money so that it can keep offering great products that allow it to make money. The execs are sitting in a room saying, "Let's piss everyone off by slowing things down!" They are constrained by how running a multi-billion dollar, multi-national company works.The business of making lenses:
• The jump in IQ is because Canon uses super premium optics on those lenses you mentioned. $2500 and $7500 lenses aren't in the same category as a 24-70mm lens. When an update is released, it will be far more expensive to help cover new R&D and production costs
• Likewise, your costs decline substantially the longer you have a lens in production. Canon has every financial incentive to drag out production as long as possible
• If you produce far too many copies of a lens, you don't update it with new optics and scrap millions of dollars of inventory
• Agreed that those black lenses sell far more copies, yes, but what do you think the margin on a $750 lens compared to a $12,000 lens? Same goes for camera bodies with price differentiation:
• Did we really
think that there was going to be a 5D III with a 61pt AF or the same sensor as the 1DX? Why would people by the 1DX? For a non-removable grip? You have to segment your market so that people don't move down without giving up enough features.
• This is why you don't see a compact, Full Frame, Fast AF, 4K video, unicorn camera that costs $3000 -- because you couldn't charge more for a premium model. Some features have to stay (by Canon's choice) on the $7000 model.
• The AF on the 5D is unlikely to have a drastic improvement in the mkIII. You either have to go up to the 1DX or down to the 7D. That's on purpose, and it's okay to curse at Canon for that decision.
So, while we would LOVE for new lenses and bodies to be released all the time, it would drive Canon's camera division into the ground. R&D is not cheap, neither is tooling a new production line, and making a camera that serves up enough ultra pro features at the low and mid level wouldn't make any economic sense. I don't want to make Canon sound evil, but this kind of production practice and market segmentation is the only way you can stay profitable enough to continue staying in business. Luckily, there are other more profitable divisions within Canon worldwide (office equipment division, etc.) that help keep everything afloat.
Sorry for the rant! I'm dying to get my hands on a 1DX, 5DIII, 200-400mm f/4, and a new 24-70mm, but we should keep in mind that Canon wants us to have those products too and will get them to us as fast as economically possible.