I'm still behind the thought process that the 70-300 is the new 100-400. They'll see how that goes and go from there.
While the announcement of the 200-400, which is of course an entirely different beast than the 100-400, seems to validate that line of thought, I won't accept this lens as such. I might be a nice lens and all, but the thing is totally overpriced and 300mm is not 400mm (and any talk about crop sensor advantage is total bull, what about FF users, what about crop users that need every mm of FL?).
If they eliminate or rather no longer evolve reasonably affordable means to get to 400mm (or maybe even 500mm, how about a 500 f5.6 IS?) and continue completely dropping the middle ground in their lens line up, which they seem to be doing at the moment, they will ultimately loose me as a customer. Just look at what lens announcements have been made over the recent years: A bunch of more or less el-cheapo kit or superzoom lenses (the 15-85 shines a bit here, but it is still just a slow standard zoom) and at the other end of the spectrum only overpriced niche (TS-E) or "pro-only" (the new super teles) lenses. The only exception is the 100L Macro, which is (barely) within the "reasonable" price range (although the almost 100% price increase of the non-L non-IS predecessor is really steep), but non-macro guys will shrug that one of as a niche lens as well.
So if they go on like this, and if I have to look to Sigma/Tamron/Tokina to find reasonably priced "enthusiast" lenses, I will definitely switch the camp -- after all, its not the recent smattering of great bodies that keeps me with Canon (how much longer will they play catch up with Nikon? After 2 years the finally answered the D300(s) with the 7D, but there is still no answer to the D700, and the 60D can't hold a candle to the D7000). Now add in that there is a lot less moaning about AF problems with third party lenses in the yellow camp, why should I bother with inferior Canon bodies any longer?
What still
does keep me with Canon are a few gems in their lens line up (most of which I have) -- and a lot of these gems are actually overdue for some polishing. The problem is that even if they
did the polishing, the main part they seem to be doing is polishing Canon's EBIT by adding at least 25 to 50% of the price over that of the predecessor, or even more if they slap a red ring on it in the process, just consider the doubling of the price for the TS-E 24 II, 100L or the near tripling for the 70-300L. So with that strategy they move formerly mid-range lenses firmly into high-end (or at least high-price) territory.
I will hold back with any investments in my hobby for now ( I admit that I
am lusting for the 70-200 2.8 IS II, but I will manage to keep that urge under control) and wait what this year brings. If the D800 becomes what people expect from Nikon and if the 5DMk.III ends up being the luke-warm lets-not-canibalize-our-valuable-1D(s)-line "upgrade" that people have started to expect from Canon, I am gone.
