Would anyone have any interest in the following lenses?

jjz2 wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

jjz2 wrote:

Nah... not those.

There are actually very few "holes" out there I would want, there are definitely some I would like a cheaper price though.

One change I would make is to have a different "mid range" zooms, on pretty much all lineups.

I'd rather have a 35-105 2.8 in the middle instead of the 24-70...

Even if that lens were as large as a 70-200 / 2.8, which it most likely would be?

Basically lens designs went from 35-70, to 28-70, to 24-70. I think it should have gone the other way...

My thinking is that *if* a 35-70 / 2A (OS) were around the same size (or not much larger than) a 24-70 / 2.8A OS, then some would prefer that compromise to carrying some combination of a 35 / 1.4, 50 / 1.4, and 85 / 1.4 -- I would be one such person.

But, like I said in the beginning, I absolutely expect my position to be am extreme minority position. That said, people who buy the 24-35 / 2A are an extreme minority, and Sigma made that, just as people who buy a 200 / 2L IS are an extreme minority, and Canon makes that.

Why would it be as large as a 70-200? I'm not a lens designer, but doesn't seem like the gap would be so big between a 24-70 and a 35-105 @ 2.8.

For instance, the 24-70 f4 is 21oz, the 24-105f4, is 23oz, and that's including the 24-35 range.

35-105 was a standard zoom range in the 90s for canikon.

We are both just moving the goal posts away from something we'd rather have.

I'd rather have the 70-105 covered on one lens, you'd rather have less range and faster, both fine ideas I think...

I'm thinking the size differential would be the same as a 70-200 / 2.8 and 70-300 / 2.8, and that size, weight, and cost is the reason no one makes a 70-300 / 2.8.