I frankly am beginning to think I need a 24mm f/1.4, so would be nice if Sigma made one with similar quality and price to the 35mm. 35 is just not quite wide enough for me...I already have the 40mm pancake; I need something a lot wider...and preferably fast aperture, with good sharpness...for less than $1000. Considering the Rokinon, but I would like autofocus.
I"m with you on that one. As others stated earlier in this discussion, a 24mm 1.4, 50mm 1.2/1.4, and the 135mm 1.8 all of comparable quality to the 35 would be enough reason for all prime shooters to shoot exclusively with Sigma glass. Although I reallyyyyyy want a solid 24mm 1.4 (I've heard mixed things about the Rokinon, so I'm hesitant to get one despite owning their 35 and 85.), I have to say I hope Sigma releases an "A" 50 next (I'd buy the 1.4, but 1.2 would be preferred is it was reasonably priced) as I've had my eye on the Canon 1.2 and I'm not sure how much longer I can hold out. Sigma would get all my money if they came out with a 50mm 1.2 at an even 1k, 24mm 1.4 at $900, and 135mm 1.8 IS at $800.
Also, I think somebody mentioned an UWA earlier, and I want one too! When I shoot UWA I shoot at the wide end almost exclusively, so I don't really want to pay for a 16-35 just to use 16-23mm. I'd really love a solid 17mm or 18mm f2.8 (or f/2...is that's possible) that takes filters and performs on par with the 17mm ts-e,but comes with a price tag of $500-700. That would get my money, too.