7-14mm f/1.6 Why: Ever needed to blow stuff away at point blank with overwhelming bokeh that scares people? In non ideal lighting conditions? There you go. Can this exist? Imagine a really, really big 14-24 f/2.8 lens but redesigned to compress the image circle into a m43 sized one. What should this be priced at for a dangerously competitive lens? USD $2000 Why? How much does a 14-24 f/2.8 lens cost? What if you integrated the telecompression elements into the design? There you go. 14-40mm f/1.2-1.6 Why: A walk around lens that truly can provide ultimate performance in all conditions, from light to night. Disturbing sharpness when stopped down. Can this exist? See: Sigma 18-35 + Speedboosting = 13-25 f/1.2 (And it is rumored that the Sigma 18-35 is really something like a 18-35 f/1.2-1.8 if you look at the iris not fully opening on the 18mm end.) What should this be priced at for a dangerously competitive lens? USD $1000 Why? Sigma 18-35 + Speedbooster = $1200 realistically. The latter is a separate element, now imagine if it was an integrated lens. ALTERNATIVELY 12-25mm f/1.2 Why: A walk around lens that truly can provide ultimate performance in all conditions, from light to night. Disturbing sharpness when stopped down. Can this exist? See: Sigma 18-35 case from previously. USD $1000 Why? Trading off a variable, fast aperture design for a constant f/1.2 lens that hits the FoV of a standard 50mm on 135. 40-100mm f/1.6 IS Why: At longer FLs, it would be more efficient to have the IS inside the lens than rely on the body stabilization. Can this exist? Do 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses exist? Yeah? There you go, this wouldn't be too far off either as again: Redesign to compress the image circle into a m43 sized one. What should this be priced at for a dangerously competitive lens? USD $2300 Why? How much does a 70-200VR/IS f/2.8 lens cost? What if you integrated the telecompression elements into the design? There you go. ALTERNATIVELY 40-100mm f/1.4 Why: Lighter variant for people who do not feel they need in-lens IS. Can this exist? See above: Subtract the stabilization from the lens What should this be priced at for a dangerously competitive lens? USD $1000 Why? Nikon still makes a 80-200mm f/2.8 lens without stabilization and it is definitely less chunky than the 70-200VRs. 14mm f/0.7 Why: Because there is no reason not to have a fast, wide lens. Can this exist? Do 135 format 28mm f/1.4s exist? Go redesign one to compress the image circle into a m43 sized one. What should this be priced at for a dangerously competitive lens? USD $1400-1800 Why? Ever need to shoot something semi wide? In less than ideal lighting? You say I asked this before? Then go answer this question yourself. 25mm f/0.7 NOCT Why: Ever shoot in the dark? There you go. Can this exist? This kind of already does if you were to hypothetically take a Canon 50mm f/1.0 and then compress the image circle a m43 sized one. What should this be priced at for a dangerously competitive lens? USD $1500 Why? It isn't an Otus or NikOtus. It would be a true, low light lens that does not suffer from coma. f/0.7 is also your maximum limit for an actual lens instead of an optical collimator. Here you have a dangerously fast option that turns dangerously sharp when stopped down to f/1.8. 60mm f/0.7 Why: Ever shoot in the dark at further away things that you want to frame perfectly and refuse to crop because of intense perfectionistic OCD on your composition? Look no further Can this exist? Go imagine a 85mm f/1.2 redesigned with the image circle compressed down too. What should this be priced at for a dangerously competitive lens? USD $2200 Why? Stare at a 85mm f/1.2. Done? Integrated telecompressor in the design? There you go. 90mm f/1.2 IS Why: Ever shoot in the dark at really far away things that you wanted to frame perfectly? Perfectionistic OCD? Moving subjects? Don't think about this more, throw money at it and make it your lens. Can this exist? Go imagine a 135mm f/2.0 lens with a Speedbooster. Now imagine if that was an APS-C image circle 135mm f/1.8 lens so it isn't as ginormous. What should this be priced at for a dangerously competitive lens? USD $1200 Why? About those 135mm f/2.0s? Guess their price and adding a telecompressor at the end. All said lenses must have: A functional manual focus ring, as in the Olympus "faux" clutch mechanism. With proper dampening or resistance. Infinitely variable between infinity and minimum focusing range, not with noticeable steps between the range. A PROPER focus scale that indicates down to: f/4 or f/5.6, f/8, f/16. No "big chunky text." Colored lines with said apertures marked in color. Engraved onto a plate on the lens body or directly on the lens body. The distances should be marked in useful graduations with large, highly readable text in imperial+metric coded respectively with white+yellow text and not sparsely with the bare minimal amount of divisions. Aperture ring optional. Dark scenery and subjects is a subjective concept that people misunderstand. Manmade lighting from a distance lighting something up that you can see will demand you to set your camera at ISO 25600 wide open at 2.8 to get a quarter second (1/4) exposure. That still sucks by any standard when your subject decides to move from its own locomotion or external sources like wind, ocean waves and many other influences such as gases combusting and pushing away partially combusted products or combustion byproducts. This is not about shooting in "moonlit"* conditions. The moment something moves, you are unable to maintain a decent shutter speed short of having something like a D3s with a 50mm f/1.2 or 58mm f/1.2 Noct. * Click for a 1:1 version. Why would someone need giant, 135 format sized lenses like this? Because the argument of equivalence means jack squat when you actually are faster: There is no 13-25mm f/1.2 lens for 135 format. That literally NEGATES the entire argument of "oh but it has more stops for noise and thin DoF." That becomes a 27-53 f/2.5 lens in DoF, but in light gathering ability for your image? That is a f/1.2 lens. That is 3.3 stops of light inhaling capability on a lens. Some people actually use that capability instead of shooting at f/4 all day long with test charts and cats for their subjects and then proclaim that they posses the fullest frame and that their equivalence destroys postage stamp sized sensors. Now imagine your AF speed wherein on sensor PDAF implements directionality (So the CDAF does not have to wiggle back and forth quickly) and then CDAF is used right as the focus hits the zone. Now imagine being able to SEE your actual f/0.7-1.2 lens' DoF because you sure won't see your thin DoF on your ground glass screen. Fortunately with all those focusing aids and fast, highly accurate AF, you could actually focus something like this without having to stare it down on your EVF or LCD. These would be lenses for actual photographers, professional and ones that are extremely passionate and highly competent. They would definitely not be for the casual photographer who wants to show photos of their offspring and pet units where they are clipped partially out of focus. This would nullify and annihilate stupid arguments that misuse the word "equivalence" so very much. If you consider this post very scary and offensive to your very existence as a photographer, please don't mind me. You can go back to shooting out of focus shots of your offspring and pets then sharing them on every photo website and social network that you can beam your work from and into people's faces. Dear Panasonic and Olympus: If you are listening, please do consider getting Sigma/Tamron/Tokina to ghostdesign for you if you are unable to do so yourself without producing an optically excellent lens. Also stop jerking the North American market around and aggressively market products instead of letting Samsung NXes take your place up on the shelf. You already know there are professional and competent shooters that want you to produce great cameras that can go from tiny-and-pocketable to APS-C DSLR like in size. Now there must be an armory of lenses to support this. A true armory of high performance lenses that are actually worth their value. There would be a huge market for such "exotic" but high performing lenses that are actually equivalent to their FF counterpart 1:1 but with the light gathering capability.