Too bad they've abandoned the 24-70 f2.0 for the 2.8. I personally think it would sell *better* due to unique value. Sigma's selling factor isn't only price, but also making lenses that simply don't exist anywhere else, like the 120-300 2.8, the 18-35 1.8, the 50-150 2.8, the 50-500, 200-500 2.8 , et cetera. Sigma already discovered with the 24-105 that the midrange zoom market is flooded, why keep trying to make something everyone else already makes?
I think quite the same, I don't understand why Sigma isn't focusing onto formulas no other produces. I, for instance, would consider a new 20mm f/1.4 ART (if that is doable, otherwise f/1. much more interesting than the 24mm they released recently. If I want a 24mm f/1.4 I can get that from Canon or even Samyang (if I want to get it cheap). No unique selling point in this formula. Sigma, please, bring on something outstanding.
I mostly agree but a unique focal length alone isn't what makes these lenses popular. I thought with the 35A
and 50A that they had figured out sharpness sells, and when you combine that with a world record aperture
it flies off the shelf (18-35A), the 24-105 was not sharper, cheaper or faster than the competition, anyone
should have been able to tell you it was going to bomb.
The only caveat here is we haven't seen a Sigma Art lens for more than $1,000 yet, so whether or not a
24-70f2 would sell well at $2,000 is still a good question. $1,000 is a huge mental barrier and Sigma would
have to nail everything down perfectly to sell a lot of those even with a world record aperture.
I think they're right to be pessimistic about an expensive wide aperture zoom, if their design estimates
weren't turning out good sharpness it may be for the best, but I would dearly liked to have seen another
crisp wide open f2 zoom lens.