"Were it not for the wind, flying would be so easy"
The root issue with any "high lift" design is cruising airspeed. The main advantage of commercial air travel is time savings.
Drag increases with V$^2$. As airspeed increases, drag from forward motion becomes much greater than drag from lift.
Airships (blimps or zeppelins) are most efficient at airspeeds up to around 80 knots. They made a serious bid for success in the 1930s before a number of weather related crashes swung sentiment in favor of mutiengined aircraft capable of speeds 3 to 4 times greater. These aircraft had a better safety record and were able to maintain schedules in more adverse conditions, critically, headwinds.
It is the cruise speed parameter, as efficient as possible, that one must design around. Modern aircraft simply fold their slats and flaps up to reduce drag at higher cruising speeds. What would a "Magnus flyer" do?
Secondly, the gyroscopic effects of a rapidly rotating cylinder wing in the roll or yaw plane (try this with a spinning bicycle wheel) would likely end the commercial scale-up effort before long.
Although a Magnus cylinder would increase lift coefficient, increases in weight and drag at higher speeds, plus stability issues would have to be overcome. In a world of biplanes, slats, flaps, slotted wings, blown wings, and helium, it is a non-starter.
Aside from gas, high aspect wings are most efficient for lifting. Golf balls don't have wings, so they use ... the Magnus effect.