Would anyone have any interest in the following lenses?

Great Bustard wrote:

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.

There is another reason for going for f/2.8 over f/4.0 besides the usual trade offs between cost, weight, IQ, etc. - an f/2.8 lets you fully use the more advanced AF sensor types, which should result in faster and more accurate AF.

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.

Yes it is - bad wording on my part; I trying to imply that the 85mm is something of a demon for bokeh. That's not so say the 70mm couldn't land in the same ballpark, but without something really special I'm not seeing a selling point.

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.

At the expense of losing the option of f/2.8, including it's better AF sensor use, plus swapping 70-100mm for 280-300mm. Plus the better IQ would probably depend on whether the TC was attached, so I guess the choice would depend on which end of the focal range you are more likely to use. Trade offs again.

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.

Doesn't hurt to speculate, and there's always a chance of stumbling over some missing combination that turns out to be hugely popular.  It's not like someone hasn't suddenly announced something that caught people off guard, and Zeiss has some "odd" focal lengths compared to Canon's typical break points for instance, so a 70mm f/2 might be right up their street.  Probably be manual and no IS though.

Andy