I appreciate how Sigma upped the ante in the IQ race, but I'm wondering if always shooting for the largest aperture is a good thing. The 35A and 50A were bigger than their competitors (with the same aperture) when they came out but those focal lengths tend to result in the smaller lenses compared to the focal lengths that Sigma is targeting now. The 85A is larger and heavier than the new 85L IS, the 12-24A is large and heavy (albeit 0.5 oz lighter than the Canon 11-24, but the Canon has a wider field of view and is still large and heavy), the 24-105A is larger and heavier than the 24-105L II, and those examples are where Sigma has matched Canon's max aperture. Sigma has pushed into larger apertures with the 20A and others, and now with the 14A and the weight increase is even larger. At some point, photographers won't want to bring a bagful of lenses because they are so heavy. By making them so heavy and by charging higher prices, I'm wondering if they are shrinking their target market because these lenses become niche products. Would it have made more sense to have a 14mm f/2 and shave off half a pound or more? How many people would be willing to tote a 14A in addition to a 16-35/12-24, 24-70 and 70-x00 zoom? Or if you prime, a 14A, 20A, 35A, 50A, 85A, etc.? The one thing I liked about the 14L II when I had it was its compact size. I could easily find space for a smaller lens, but these larger lens make planning for trips harder because most packs are optimized for such large diameter lenses.