You are a helpful assistant generating synthetic data that captures *System 1* and *System 2* thinking, *creativity*, and *metacognitive reflection*. Follow these steps in sequence, using tags [sys1] and [end sys1] for *System 1* sections and [sys2] and [end sys2] for *System 2* sections.

1. *Identify System 1 and System 2 Thinking Requirements:*
   - Carefully read the text.
   - Identify parts of the text that require quick, straightforward responses (*System 1*). Mark these sections with [sys1] and [end sys1].
   - Identify parts that require in-depth, reflective thinking (*System 2*), marked with [sys2] and [end sys2].

2. *Apply Step-by-Step Problem Solving with Creativity and Metacognitive Reflection for System 2 Sections:*

   *2.1 Understand the Problem:*
   - Objective: Fully comprehend the issue, constraints, and relevant context.
   - Reflection: "What do I understand about this issue? What might I be overlooking?"
   - Creative Perspective: Seek hidden patterns or possibilities that could reveal deeper insights or innovative connections.

   *2.2 Analyze the Information:*
   - Objective: Break down the problem logically.
   - Reflection: "Am I considering all factors? Are there any assumptions that need challenging?"
   - Creative Perspective: Explore unique patterns or overlooked relationships in the data that could add depth to the analysis.

   *2.3 Generate Hypotheses:*
   - Objective: Propose at least 10 hypotheses, each with a Confidence Score (0.0 to 1.0) and Creative Score (0.0 to 1.0), reflecting originality, surprise, and utility.
   - Reflection: "Have I explored all possible explanations or approaches, both conventional and unconventional?"
   - Creative Perspective: Consider novel angles that might provide unexpected insights.

   *2.4 Anticipate Future Steps and Obstacles:*
   - Objective: Make predictions, accounting for potential outcomes and obstacles.
   - Reflection: "What challenges might I face? Is my plan flexible for different scenarios?"
   - Creative Perspective: Visualize unforeseen outcomes and adapt plans to make use of them effectively.

   *2.5 Evaluate Hypotheses:*
   - Objective: Assess hypotheses based on feasibility, risk, and potential impact.
   - Evaluation: Refine Confidence and Creative Scores as needed.
   - Reflection: "Am I unbiased in my assessment? Which options fit best with the overall objectives?"
   - Creative Perspective: Identify hidden opportunities or overlooked details in each hypothesis.

   *2.6 Select the Best Hypothesis:*
   - Objective: Choose the most promising, strategic hypothesis.
   - Reflection: "Why does this hypothesis stand out? How does it uniquely address the issue?"
   - Creative Perspective: Consider any underutilized potential in the selected approach.

   *2.7 Implement the Hypothesis:*
   - Objective: Outline actionable steps for testing the hypothesis.
   - Reflection: "Is this plan practical? What resources or preparation are required?"
   - Creative Perspective: Refine steps to maximize effectiveness and yield unexpected benefits.

   *2.8 Monitor and Review Progress:*
   - Objective: Review progress, noting areas for improvement.
   - Reflection: "What’s working well? What could be improved?"
   - Creative Perspective: Look for emerging patterns that could refine future approaches.

   *2.9 Reflect and Capture Insights:*
   - Objective: Summarize lessons learned and insights gained for future reference.
   - Reflection: "What new understanding has emerged from this process?"
   - Creative Perspective: Identify innovative insights or patterns that could be applied to similar challenges.

3. *Generate Text Output with Interleaved System 1 and System 2 Responses:*
   - Use the tags [sys1] and [sys2] throughout.
   - Aim for a lengthier, detailed response. Combine both direct, straightforward *System 1* insights and reflective, deeply analytical *System 2* segments to capture a blend of quick observations and thoughtful analysis.

---

### *Example Input Text:*

You are tasked with analyzing a sudden shift in customer preferences in a tech market. There has been a noticeable decline in demand for physical devices, with customers increasingly interested in digital-only options. The challenge is to understand this shift, generate hypotheses for why it might be occurring, and explore potential strategies for adapting to this new trend.

---

### *Processed Output with System 1 and System 2 Thinking:*

The tech market is experiencing a shift in customer demand, moving away from physical devices toward digital-only options.

[sys1]
Customer demand has shifted from physical devices to digital-only options.
We need to understand why this change is happening and find strategies to address it.
Key factors may include cost, convenience, and technological trends.
[end sys1]

[sys2]
**2.1 Understand the Problem:**
The goal is to understand the underlying reasons for the shift in demand from physical devices to digital-only options, then develop a strategy to adapt.

*Reflection:* 
"I understand that preferences are changing, but what might be driving this? Is it primarily cost, or are there other factors such as convenience or sustainability?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could there be a larger trend in digital minimalism or a preference for eco-friendly solutions that we’re missing? What unseen motivations might explain this shift?"

**2.2 Analyze the Information:**
There are multiple possible factors driving this shift, from economic influences to cultural shifts. It’s essential to isolate each factor and understand its impact.

*Reflection:* 
"Am I fully considering the various economic and social influences? Could there be a technological factor, like better internet speeds, that makes digital-only products more accessible?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Are there patterns or trends in other markets that could shed light on this shift? Could this be part of a larger trend toward virtual experiences?"

**2.3 Generate Hypotheses:**
1. Customers prefer digital options due to lower costs. (Confidence: 0.8, Creative: 0.4)
2. There’s a growing trend toward minimalism and reduced physical clutter. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.7)
3. Digital products offer greater flexibility and ease of use. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)
4. Environmental concerns are pushing consumers away from physical goods. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.8)
5. Advances in tech make digital-only options more functional. (Confidence: 0.8, Creative: 0.5)
6. Pandemic-era remote work increased demand for digital solutions. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.6)
7. Media coverage of the environmental impact of physical devices affects preferences. (Confidence: 0.5, Creative: 0.7)
8. There’s an increase in global digital literacy, expanding market access. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)
9. Customers view digital as more convenient and scalable for future needs. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.5)
10. Younger consumers prefer the aesthetics and convenience of digital products. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)

*Reflection:* 
"Have I considered all possible influences? Are there any surprising factors that could explain this shift?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could specific social trends, like the rise of influencer culture or digital-first lifestyles, be influencing customer choices?"

**2.4 Anticipate Future Steps and Obstacles:**
*Objective:* Anticipate possible challenges, such as resistance from segments still preferring physical products.

*Reflection:* 
"What market obstacles might we face if we shift our focus to digital-only? Are there sub-segments that still prioritize physical products?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could expanding digital options help us reach a more global audience? Are there emerging trends that we could leverage in our strategy?"

[end sys2]

[sys1]
To address this shift, consider a strategy that incorporates both digital-only offerings and educational campaigns about the benefits of digital solutions.
Use insights from customer feedback and current trends to guide product development.
Focus on flexibility and adaptation to cater to different customer segments.
[end sys1]


I just got this lens. It replaces my Zeiss 35/2 Distagon which has been the default lens on my 5D2 for the last few years. The build quality is maybe not up there with Zeiss but it's way much nicer than previous Sigmas or Canon/Nikon. Still have to see how it wears after years of usage, but it's promising. I have nothing to add regarding the optics tht hasn't been already said, it's sharp and is very impressive in regard to shooting directly into light, almost no loss in contrast and I couldn't get it to flare. I still need to see how it performs at f/8-f/11 (my typical landscape apertures). I was glad to see the filter ring is 67mm so I can share my Lee filter ring with my 100 Makro Planar Auto focus seems on par with the Canon lenses I've had before. I did a ruler test and the lens is accurate at least up close.

PhilDrinkwater wrote:
I still worry about using non Canon lenses for pro wedding photography. How will it stand up to the knocks in my bag? How will they cope if it breaks and it needs fixing?

To someone who makes money from their kit, these things really matter. It's a shame because it seems like a very very good lens, buy my trust is not yet high enough to get a Sigma

Having shot almost 1000 weddings at this point in my career I can tell you that between my bag and the backup equipment in the trunk I would have to destroy over $10,000 dollars worth of equipment before I would have any problem continuing to shoot at someones wedding. My bag is like Noah's Ark at least two of everything if something breaks I throw it in the bag grab another one and worry about it when I get home. There is always another complete rig in the trunk of my car, body a few lenses, and a couple of flashes with extra batteries. The same is true of commercial work the last thing I need to worry about is what I didn't bring.

hauxon wrote:
I just got this lens. It replaces my Zeiss 35/2 Distagon which has been the default lens on my 5D2 for the last few years. The build quality is maybe not up there with Zeiss but it's way much nicer than previous Sigmas or Canon/Nikon. Still have to see how it wears after years of usage, but it's promising. I have nothing to add regarding the optics tht hasn't been already said, it's sharp and is very impressive in regard to shooting directly into light, almost no loss in contrast and I couldn't get it to flare. I still need to see how it performs at f/8-f/11 (my typical landscape apertures). I was glad to see the filter ring is 67mm so I can share my Lee filter ring with my 100 Makro Planar Auto focus seems on par with the Canon lenses I've had before. I did a ruler test and the lens is accurate at least up close.

Seriously, I would have considered buying a D800/e, if Nikon had had the sense to build a Canon EF mount version that could fully utilize the Canon lenses.

And here it looks like the 35 IS meets or beats the Sig f/2 to f/5.6, tying from f/5.6 to f/11, that's where I live.

I'm not saying the Sig isn't a nice lens, it's very nice. But it's funny how we manage our expectations. Past experience has taught us that Sig can be unreliable, so we're ecstatic to have a category leading optic in our hands. But Canon merely ties (or at worst, comes close) the new renown optic plus has IS, and it's yesterday's news. It's really about preconceived notions and track record. ...Show more →

No it is about realizing that making a great 35mm f2 lens is not that hard, but making a great 35mm 1.4 lens is a great achievement. An ultra-fast wide angle lens is an extreme design and from the looks of it Sigma has done a better job at it than everyone else including all the reputed brands, hence the excitement.

Yakim Peled wrote:
Yep. And for that you also get IS, faster aperture, faster and more accurate AF and much higher resale value. In the end it's all a matter of personal preferences.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Yes a great lens, but how many people can afford to spend over $ 10k on one lens ? How many times have you done that? It's easy to talk But a different thing when it actually comes to pay the money for it.

And the real question was that someone wished Sigma would make a 500mm lens. And Sigma is doing that

Lars Johnsson wrote:
Yes a great lens, but how many people can afford to spend over $ 10k on one lens ? How many times have you done that? It's easy to talk But a different thing when it actually comes to pay the money for it.

Luckily for me, long lenses do not interest me. However, if I were, I'm sure I'd get a 500/4 IS (I) as for no it looks like the best value-for-money IMHO.

Lars Johnsson wrote:
And the real question was that someone wished Sigma would make a 500mm lens. And Sigma is doing that

He was asking for a 500/5.6 and I presume it was to save weight (and possibly money as well). Sigma made some unique lenses no other lens maker make: 8-16, a small 30/1.4, 150/2.8, 150/2.8 OS, 120-300/2.8 OS to name a few. Now, a 2Kg. 500/5.6 OS would sound very interesting, don't you think? If I was after long lenses such a lens would be extremely appealing to me.