IglooEater said:
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?
Bro, it just doesn't make financial sense, so there is no "too bad". There is absolutely no way it would sell better than a 2.8. Yes, it would be unique. But you know what unique requires? Additional research and development cost. Also, a 2.0 is going to require a lot more glass than a 2.8. That also adds to the expense. Look at other similar lenses that are semi-fast and add an additional stop. There is no small price increase, small size increase, or small weight increase. It's dramatic in all aspects. As an example, looks at the difference between a 200mm 2.8 and a 200mm 2.0. They're world's apart, yet only one stop apart.
Lenses approaching $1000 are already a small market. A lot of my friends can swing one nice lens for about a thousand. When you get closer to $2000 (which is at least what you'd approach for a 24-70 2.0), your market reduces significantly more. Here's an n=1 anecdote. I've been able to convince my wife to let me buy many lenses over the last few years. The total value on those equals almost $8000. I asked her permission to buy an Canon 85mm 1.2, promising her I'd hold off on purchases for a few more years, and she flat out refused, wouldn't have any of it. There absolutely IS a psychological effect when between buying something costing three figures versus four figures.
You bring up a good point, however, when you do, you deflate your argument even further. True, the market IS flooded with mid range zooms. There's even less incentive to create a unique, but very expensive, 24-70 f2.0. People already have mid range zooms. Most aren't going to upgrade to something that will easily cost double of what they're already using, especially when they're going to have to deal with a much heavier and bulkier lens. Of course, some will, but those people, again, will be a small minority.
Listen, it'd be cool to see it, but it doesn't make any sense for a company to create it. Trust the company. They're the ones with money at stake. They've already done research to find out how viable it is. The simple fact that work towards that lens is no longer continuing means there is little financial benefit, if any, for creating that lens.
