At the cost for a good lens, the market would be small. Since most (not all) wide lens usage is for landscapes, where f/16 is often used, it would be a waste. For real estate interiors, auto interiors, or in tight quarters, it might work, but having proper lighting would be better and cheaper than paying $5,000 for a lens, and then not having the depth of field needed for interior photos.
What kind of use would you have for it? A wide angle like that is not suitable for portraits.
Astro, I'd presume. Wide + Fast is just what you need for stars, I'm told.
+1 I wished today for a 16mm f 2L lens (to tell the truth I wished also for a 14mm f1.4L too but pretend you didn't read that
You see to day I was doing astrophotography with the 14mm 2.8L II and at the same time I tested my 16-35 f/4L IS. Wow! This zoom does not have coma (in contrast to my old 16-35 2.8L which has long gone!)
But it is an f/4 which is perfect for landscapes but not astrophotography. So for now,my 14mm 2.8L II remains as my most used lens for that purpose (even with a little coma).