As far as the first point goes the 70-200 f/4 IS is a much newer and more expensive lens plus of course its a f/4 lens.
As far as the latter goes I'd mention the Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC and non VC versions, thats an example of "cheap IS" and it seems to be pretty much universally considered to have come at the cost of optical performance. The new Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS does deliver performance near to the Canon but with less range and much less difference in price.
Seems to me that while adding IS to a lens need not be expensive doing so without damaging optical performance on more advanced optics is not.
Both Canon and Nikon do IMHO seem to be missing out on a market creating more affordable FF zooms though, I can understand it to some extent hoping that the brand will pursuade users to pickup a more expense higher end product but something like the new 24-70 does seem to be pushing that to me.
I agree. I'm not one to bemoan the price of the new 24-70mm. I simply won't be a customer for it, a) because I don't need it and b) because I couldn't possibly justify spending that kind of money on it even if I could afford it. I'm sure the vast majority of Canon users share this view.
As for having no IS, I can't help thinking that Canon has got itself in a real marketing mess with the launches of the two new wide-angle IS primes. After all, who in their right mind would be shelling out £800 each for these primes if the new 24-70mm, with its promised image quality, also had IS?
Actually, who in their right mind will shell out £800 each for these primes in any case? Canon's relentless climb up the price curve is leaving an ever-increasing void in the market which Sigma and Tamron between them will quickly fill. I doubt we will have to wait too long before Sigma launches similar (and probably faster) wide-angle OS primes at half the price. I'm looking forward to it.