To me, twice the size and twice the weight is irrelevant. Perhaps that's a function of my having shot Pentax 6x7 for quite a while and my predilection for equipment that has enough heft to be capable of anchoring itself. I have a very compact Leica, and sometimes I enjoy shooting with that -- ditto an MX and 40/2.8 -- but for the most part the size of the equipment is somewhat irrelevant when I'm concerned about getting good results. And, as I said, in most cases I prefer a heftier rig. Paul
> The FA 20 f2.8, compared to the Sigma 20mm f1.8. The Sigma is twice the size > and > more than twice the weight. Well, I'll be testing the newcomer to see how it > does at f2.8 relative to the Sigma. > > The manual that came with it has a printing date of 2003. So I guess there > was a > manufacturing run last year. I suspect this will mean that a DA or D FA 18-20 > won't appear anytime soon. > > Joe > >
