Would anyone have any interest in the following lenses?

Andy Blanchard wrote:

No to all for me, my personal reasons based on my usage as follows:

35-70 / 2A OS: Debatable if the extra stop would be much use over my 24-70mm f/2.8, especially if Canon ever ever makes the oft-discussed version with IS at some point. Then again, 35-70mm would make a good street shooting combo with a 16-35mm...

Interesting, though, that so many feel the extra stop of the 70-200 / 2.8 is worth it over the 70-200 / 4, the extra stop of the 24-70 / 2.8 is worth it over the 24-70 / 4 (and 24-105 / 4), and the extra stop of the 16-35 / 2.8 is worth it over the 16-35 / 4.

70 / 1.8A OS: Odd focal length. If I'm after shallow DoF and nice bokeh (which is presumably the point) I'd go probably go for an 85mm f/1.8 instead and just take a step or two further back for even shallower DoF and creamier bokeh.

The DOF will be the same for the same framing, but the background blur will be greater for the longer focal length.  As for the bokeh, that depends on the design of the lens as the bokeh is the quality of the blur, not the quantity.

100-300 / 4S OS: Might be a good travel lens, but you'd probably do better with a 70-200mm f/2.8 and a 1.4x TC, which is how I generally cover that range at present.

I would expect that the IQ of a 100-300 / 4S OS would be better than a 70-200 / 2.8 + 1.4x TC, as well as being smaller and lighter and with faster AF.

Like others, I'm not seeing many gaps in the current line up other than maybe a slower but longer complement to the 200-400mm; a 300-600mm f/5.6, perhaps? Specialist lenses like macros with built in ringlights, TS-Es, and so on, sure - there's maybe a market for such things, but mostly at this point it's about improving the optics, providing faster AF, and - in some cases - the addition of IS.

Sure -- like I said, I'm more than certain that I'm in a small minority, here.