Yes. Once again, it's all about the money. The three IS primes are indeed fine lenses. But they are/were overpriced for anyone who does not have a definite need for a lens with those characteristics. Does that sound a little like the saga of the EOS M? For casual amature photographers they are simply too expensive. For most enthusiasts and pros, they are too slow (again, for the money). Personally, I would love to have the 24 and the 35 for the sake of convenience, but I have those ranges competently covered. If these new prices are indeed "permanent", then when a sale/rebates come around, or they start showing up as refurbs, I will take another look. I suspect I'm not alone here...
Have to disagree. These lenses are for FF users -- so you can't compare them to EF-S primes (there is only that one macro EF-S prime, after all). Further, they are not 'way more pricey than the versions they are replacing', they are 'way cheaper than the corresponding L versions'.
For the extra money for the 24L ($1749) and 35L ($1479) -- both great lenses -- you get that extra bit of build quality and two stops... of relatively soft performance
. And in my hands, I never shoot wider than F/2 at those lengths, so half that upside is unnecessary with my 28mm. I'll take the 3-4 stops of IS over one faster stop (F/2, again, just what I do) any day.
I'm not saying that they are the best lenses on the market, but for the apertures I shoot, they are just as sharp as the L glass at less than half the price. That's a great
value proposition to me.
I would expect the rumored 50 F/1.8 IS to similarly start high (guess $800) and walk down to $600 after a year.