I wouldn't blame this on schneider nor on any lens manufacturer. It's just a fact that you need huge glass elements and a huge lens barrel in general to get a wide opening. I suppose it just wouldn't be economical and prices would be even more exquisite. Bear in mind that many users of this system shoot with flash and the idea of a leaf shutter lens is simply to use fill flash. So does the aperture opening matter? And would it be wiser to have a f/4,5 that is usable or a f/2,8 that is extremely soft? I mean the difference between F/2,8 and f/4,5 is merely 1,3 stops.
Max, are you forgetting that Mamiya already made 200/2.8 and 300/2.8 APO lenses for the very same 645 format?
Do they have huge barrels? No...
Are they extremely soft at f/2.8? No...(trust me, I have the 200/2.8 and it's in another league of image quality to most MF lenses).
Does a mere 1.3 stops matter? Yes, to me...even 1.0 or 0.7 stops matters.
Can a leaf shutter be put in a fast medium format lens? Yes...look at Rollei (80/2, 110/2, 180/2.8, 300/4).
Yeah, 3 of those 4 Rollei speed demons were Schneider lenses, so maybe it's not a Schneider thing...the conservatism could well originate with Phase One who commissioned the LS lenses and who, let's face it, do not have any pedigree in lenses.
Sure, a faster lens would be more expensive. Looking at the prices people are already paying for P1 systems and LS lenses, I think it would still sell.
Now, you mentioned fill flash. This is a fairly long telephoto, so in most situations it will be used with the subject at some considerable distance away. Flash reach therefore becomes an issue. How do you extend flash reach? By opening up the aperture. You then need a faster shutter to avoid ambient overexposure, so you're covered with the 1/1600 speed of the LS. That, combined with the extra "medium formatness" of really large aperture bokeh, makes a compelling case in my view.
Ray