No, it's not just a matter... Metallic paint is not just standard paint with glitter; it requires a more complicated chemical and mechanical process to produce and apply. Metallics almost always require a multi-stage process, whereas standard paints can often be applied in a simple 2-stage process. Robotic sprayers also must be calibrated more precisely for metallic finishes so the glitter doesn't end up in patterns.
Given it's wider, better, smaller, lighter, has IS, and was cheaper at launch than the 11-24 was a decade before, I rather think it is. At least in relative terms. Yeah, it's the most expensive lens I own, but it's also the best value. Probably.
Nope, that's not what I meant. If have use-cases and a "need" (not a want, I'd be bankrupt) I consider spending a lot of money on a lens. RF 100-500mm has been the most expensive and I´d be willing to break the bank for a 70-150mm F2.
Nevermind, my quick search price comparison showed me prices for used copies of the Sony and Sigma. They were between 800-1.200 € which led me to believe Canons offering is more than twice as much. That's were my comment came from. But now, with more sleep and a slightly clearer head (we're all sick with the flu) I realized my search was faulty.
Sorry, but my own experience in a huge car company was different....but ante water based paint or powder slurry.
The thing is, lately it's been selling north of $1000 when retailers get one in stock. I don't think Canon is out of line for charging what the current market is at.
Almost 1300 euro for an old g7 thats just insane
