You can think about what I think or not as much as you like. If you really want to know what I think, ask, else I see no reason to correct assumptions. Especially not of someone who left my questions to him unreplied 
I see a 35/1.2 Art which goes the same road like all Art lenses - the heavy and big one. I also see a new designed 14-24, not a bit smaller or lighter than the DSLR version. Edit: Whoopsy - should have checked before: 795 grams vs. 1150 grams! That's quite something!
And no matter if they fill the gap you whine about with glass or air, I simply have no reason to believe Sigma lenses will become significantly lighter by just redesigning them. Now I do!
I would love to see you in the shoes of Sigmas's CEO, deciding between the cheap and quick solution (air in the rear end) or the more expensive and slower one of completely new design. It's always easy to complain but how many Sigmas you bought so far?
Mind you, after they brought out the 24/1.4 and 35/1.4 they came up with a 24-35/2 which appears to be pretty sharp and would save one lens to buy. If I had known that before - would I have had the patience to wait two years? I don't know, but it would have been good to know about.
So, why wait until new lenses are designed if the old ones are still able to keep up? Do you expect them to become much better AND lighter as a redesign? That's a real question. Because if there's no weight or size reduction, but just a bit sharper edges or a fraction less CA, I really don't know what to prefer. It also depends on the body: A Panasonic S or SR suits to the weight of Art lenses. My Nikon Z less so. I could imagine to have some Nikon Arts mount-changed to L-mount, but with the new Sony α7 RIV?
I see a 35/1.2 Art which goes the same road like all Art lenses - the heavy and big one. I also see a new designed 14-24, not a bit smaller or lighter than the DSLR version. Edit: Whoopsy - should have checked before: 795 grams vs. 1150 grams! That's quite something!
And no matter if they fill the gap you whine about with glass or air, I simply have no reason to believe Sigma lenses will become significantly lighter by just redesigning them. Now I do!
I would love to see you in the shoes of Sigmas's CEO, deciding between the cheap and quick solution (air in the rear end) or the more expensive and slower one of completely new design. It's always easy to complain but how many Sigmas you bought so far?
Mind you, after they brought out the 24/1.4 and 35/1.4 they came up with a 24-35/2 which appears to be pretty sharp and would save one lens to buy. If I had known that before - would I have had the patience to wait two years? I don't know, but it would have been good to know about.
So, why wait until new lenses are designed if the old ones are still able to keep up? Do you expect them to become much better AND lighter as a redesign? That's a real question. Because if there's no weight or size reduction, but just a bit sharper edges or a fraction less CA, I really don't know what to prefer. It also depends on the body: A Panasonic S or SR suits to the weight of Art lenses. My Nikon Z less so. I could imagine to have some Nikon Arts mount-changed to L-mount, but with the new Sony α7 RIV?