Perhaps someone can enlighten me?
CR's take on the 24-70ii was that Canon had several prototypes, but the one(s) with IS were too heavy or the iq tradeoff was to large to get the weight down. And Canon simply sells stuff for as much money as they can get away with - and they should since I cannot afford it anyhow, better release the "good" stuff at a reasonable price and sell the "stellar" stuff at a premium. For a pro who's in business 1000$ is not a lot of money for better results, and nothing compared to the cost of good tele lenses. When did anyone complain about the price of the 70-200?
Yeah, I'm aware about Canon's strategy. Thanks a lot, anyway. But now the things are changed. And are changed in a significant matter, imho. There IS a viable alternative at a much lower price.
And not a viable alternative (imho) but one which has an important feature which Canon didn't manage to make it - so the price difference doesn't justify. Not the price alone.
See, in the case of of 70-200 (esp. in the case of 70-200 II) there aren't other alternatives which can compete with much success (ok, Sigma perhaps). And hence Canon can settle for a price which market can bear. The same is in the case of, for example, L 8-15 fisheye. It is worth $1400? But since Tammy's & Sigma offerings cannot compete optically and feature wise (or, better to say that the others' offerings are nonexistent), Canon has that price.
But in the case of newly released Tammy's 24-70 VC the things are different. I think that the price / performance ratio is in favor of Tamron by a wide margin, even compared with Canon's 24-70 II if the Canon will keep the same price.
0.02c++ & HTH,