Would anyone have any interest in the following lenses?

fishy wishy wrote:

It would have been a more interesting post if you detailed the use case for these lenses.

If people need me to tell them what to use the lenses for, then I'm thinking they wouldn't need or want them.

I've never felt the need for a 35-70 f2.

I think you are in the vast majority.

What would you be doing with it?

Taking photos.

When you are asking for such a limited zoom range, do you want it as sharp as a bag of primes...

Yes.

...and do you know having the extra OS elements interferes with that objective?

Canon sure makes a lot of compromised L lenses, then.

Re a 70/1.8, why when there is a very good Tamron 85/1.8 VC?

Because the Sigma 85 / 1.4A *smokes* the Tamron 85 / 1.8 VC, I like 70mm more than 85mm (I did a shoot the other day *entirely* with my 70 / 2.8 macro), and f/1.8 at 70mm is "fast enough" for me (gives the same background blur as 50mm f/1.4) and would prefer the smaller size, weight, and price of f/1.8 over f/1.4 at that focal length. But, sure, I'll take a 70 / 1.4A OS.

I used two 100-300/4. First was quite good. Second was beaten by a sharp 70-200 with 1.4x TC. Personally I didn't think it was worthwhile compared to the versatility of a 70-200 with TC. It could be quite a lot of money to pay for a rather slow lens, though it's not bad for outdoor sports on a monopod. It's not that there's no market for it, it's just that it was a rather small market with a rather slim profit margin and Sigma gave up on it.

Sigma's rather upped their game since that time.

I've sometimes felt the need for a fast 35-105/2.8 OS for indoor portraiture and 35-135/2.8 for dance groups etc.

I've never felt the need.