alex wetmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, William Robb wrote: >> I'm not imagining it as a 35mm lens, since it doesn't cover the format. >> The whole point of the small sensors was to enable smaller cameras and >> lenses. >> The 16-45 takes a 67mm filter, and is larger than the 18-35. I happen to >> have that lens, and it is pretty big. Fortunately, it doesn't weigh >> anything, and has the advantage of covering the full 35mm frame. >> All of a sudden, we think lenses that take the same filter size as a Pentax >> 6x7 are small? > >Compared to 35mm lenses in the same size it is small. > >For comparison lets look at the Sigma 15-30/f3.5-f4.5.
Well, that's not a fair comparison. For *equivalent focal length*, you should be comparing it to a 23-67mm lens. Say a 24-70 f/4. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
