Would anyone have any interest in the following lenses?

gavin wrote:

Are you looking for Sigma lens since you use OS as the stabilization.

As stated in the OP, I feel that such lenses have basically no chance of being made (the most likely would be a 100-300 / 4S OS since Sigma once made a 100-300 / 4).  So, the reason I chose Sigma as the example is because I felt that *if* such lenses were made, it would most likely be Sigma, since their CEO has said that they have an interest in producing "unconventional" lenses and have done just that with the 20 / 1.4A and 24-35 / 2A.

I am not interested in any of them and there are similar lenses. A 24-70/2 may be interesting but probably will be too heavy.

A 24-70 / 2 would be quite a bit larger and heavier than the 35-70 / 2A OS that I proposed.

photosen wrote:

If the third option were a 200-400 or even longer, at an affordable price (less than $1,000), even of it were f5.6 (constant), it would be a logical addition for those of us with 70-200... And if it's a Sigma with zero AF problems.

There's already the Sigma 100-400 / 5-6.3C OS from Sigma if the Canon 100-400 / 4.5-5.6L IS is too heavy and/or expensive.  And there are some 150-600 / 5-6.3 lenses from both Sigma and Tamron.

DtEW wrote:

I'd push the long-end of your standard zoom from 70mm to 85mm.

A stabilized 35-85mm f/2 would make for a very interesting option for the purposes of social photography.

That said, Sigma does a 24-35mm f/2 without OS and it's a kilogram. I would certainly expect any f/2 zoom at either 70mm or 85mm on the long-end to be considerably heavier.

A lot bigger and heavier -- probably more so than a 70-200 / 2.8.

A crop-image-circle, stabilized 24-58mm f/2 might be more feasible.

I think that would be larger and heavier than a 35-70 / 2 since it goes from WA to normal which, I think, is more of an issue than normal to slightly telephoto.

In any case, look at the size, weight, and cost of the Sigma 24-35 / 2A and then consider what the size, weight, and cost of increasing that zoom ratio by an additional 66% to a 24-58 / 2 might be.

ed rader wrote:

it's not the lenses man.

...you hate anything Sigma, anyway.  In any case, if it's not the lenses, what is it?  I already put an option in the OP to say not from Sigma, but I would if they were Canon.

Great Bustard wrote:

The following lenses top my wish list, but I know that none of them will ever be made, or, at the very least, are very unlikely to be made any time in the next decade. In order:

• 35-70 / 2A OS
• 70 / 1.8A OS
• 100-300 / 4S OS

I made my options all Sigma since I think that there is a far higher chance Sigma would make these lenses than Canon (although the chance is still close to zero), but who makes them doesn't matter with regards to this poll.

Does anyone else share an interest in these lenses, or is it, as I suspect, pretty much only me? If so, please cast your vote and specify which lenses you'd have an interest in.

First of all let me say it out loud I love Sigma Art series lenses, however, I personally have no interest in the first two at all but a slight chance I may consider the 3rd one because:

1. 50-70 is the least used focal range when I shot with the 24-70, so I see no reason for me to get a zoom like 35-70 while I don't use anything but 35 but give up on F1.4 for the range I never used.

2. again, 50-70 is a range I hardly ever used, so I will stick with my 85mm instead.

3. This one I have a mixed feeling, from the 100-200mm range, I definitely don't care for the F4 max aperture, but at 300mm, the 2.8 is too big to carry around, I would only use it when going out to a very specific event which I am only short wlalk from my car, so I would welcome a F4 lens for most of the time, so for this one I am not 100 % at this point if I would get one or not, but at least I am remotely interested in, but at the end most likely I would still stick with 70-200 F2.8 + 300 F4 Prime instead as I really have hard time with a F4 lens at 100-200 range, the only useful part for me on your purposed lens is the 300 F4 end, so may as well get a prime which is likely to have even better quality than a zoom at its long end.

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

I've never felt the need for a 35-70 f2. What would you be doing with it? When you are asking for such a limited zoom range, do you want it as sharp as a bag of primes and do you know having the extra OS elements interferes with that objective?

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

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.

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.

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.

Great Bustard wrote:

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.

I see there's point 'discussing' with you since you are merely sarcastic and don't provide information requested.

There's a special dpreview list for people like that.

fishy wishy wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

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.

I see there's point 'discussing' with you since you are merely sarcastic and don't provide information requested.

You mean like the rest of my reply that you snipped out? Or was it that you got all butthurt because I didn't tell you what I, personally, would use the lenses for? Or are you still sulking over this rebuttal from the last time you took a swipe in a poll I started? Or maybe this post of mine debunking your nonsense. Or was it this one? Man, I'm beginning to lose count.

There's a special dpreview list for people like that.

Given the history linked above, I'd consider it a personal favor if you would.

Abu Mahendra wrote:

not looking good for the poll, Buster...

Actually, I'm shocked at how good it is looking -- at the time of this post, 1 in 6 have an interest in one or more of the lenses, which is a lot more than the 1 in 20 or less that I expected.

What we really need and want is an EF 50mm f/2 L IS USM Macro

Depends on the size, weight, and cost, but I'd be game.  If making it 1:2 or 1:3 made it "significantly" smaller, lighter, and less expensive, I'd go for that over 1:1.

It's truly surprising to me that Canon has not updated the 50 / 1.4, 50 / 1.2L, or 50 / 2.5 macro.  Then again, they've not updated the 85 / 1.8 or 100 / 2, either.  But even when they do, I have to ask what too so +++++++ long for them to do so.

I mean, wouldn't those be some of the most important lenses to update?  Or are they selling so well, anyway, that there was never any rush?  Then again, they updated the 70-200 / 2.8L IS which was super popular as well as the 85 / 1.2L, so that argument wouldn't seem to fly.