I guess a 28-70 covers 3 important focal lengths: 28-35-50. Not sure whether the 50-70 range is that useful.
A 28-85 would make more sense IMHO.
Traditionally, manufacturers have been producing these two main zooms: 24-70 and 70-200
Such a combo still lacks any UWA focal length, so you'd need to add a 16-35 or equivalent, thus a 3rd lens.
I argue that the following combo would be much more useful: 16-50 and 50-150
With these 2 lenses you get a much more useful range covered without the need for a 3rd lens.
The 150-200 range doesn't matter much IMO.
Why is it that no manufacturer released such lenses? Would a 16-50 be much more difficult to design than a 24-70?
A 28-85 would make more sense IMHO.
Traditionally, manufacturers have been producing these two main zooms: 24-70 and 70-200
Such a combo still lacks any UWA focal length, so you'd need to add a 16-35 or equivalent, thus a 3rd lens.
I argue that the following combo would be much more useful: 16-50 and 50-150
With these 2 lenses you get a much more useful range covered without the need for a 3rd lens.
The 150-200 range doesn't matter much IMO.
Why is it that no manufacturer released such lenses? Would a 16-50 be much more difficult to design than a 24-70?