Would anyone have any interest in the following lenses?

Kevin Omura wrote:

They are close enough to lenses currently in production that it doesn't seem logical to make them with perhaps the exception of the 100-300 but honestly nope.

So a 35-70 / 2 and 70 / 1.8 are "close enough to lenses currently in production that it doesn't seem logical to make them with perhaps the exception of the 100-300"?  But we have a couple of 50 / 1.8 lenses, several 50 / 1.4 lenses, and a 50 / 1.2 lens; an 85 / 1.8, 85 / 1.4, and 85 / 1.2, several 70-200 / 2.8 lenses; and a 70-200 / 4 and a couple of 70-300 / 4-5.6 lenses.

I'm thinking a 35-70 / 2 and 70 / 1.8 stand out a little more from the crowd than a lot of others that are made.

We already own the 50-500 Sigma which is a very handy lens.

And yet the 150-600 lenses and 100-400 lenses seem pretty popular.

The 70mm is close enough to the 85 f1.8/1.2 or the 50 f1.8/1.4/1.2 that again that focal length might be irrelevant considering you might just be able to shift your position to make up what minimal difference that focal length can afford.

So you're saying that we don't need 100mm lenses, either, then, right?

The 35-70 is already covered off by many f2.8 lenses and honestly a 1 stop advantage is likely to be offset by cost and weight.

Does this apply for the 85 / 1.2L vs the 85 / 1.8?  The 85 / 1.4A vs the 85 / 1.8?  The 50 / 1.2L vs the 50 / 1.8?  The 70-200 / 2.8 vs the 70-200 / 4?  The 24-70 / 2.8 vs the 24-70 / 4?

Maybe a few years ago when sensors didn't have the high ISO capabilities of todays faster heavier glass might have made sense but today it might not make a lot of sense to gain a stop through the optics vs the boost from higher spec sensors and cpus.

Seems like you're arguing against the existence of a lot of popular lenses.