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. This is a narrower zoom range, very slightly wider, and about the same speed overall. http://www.sigmaphoto.com/html/pages/15_30_ex.htm has these specs: Dimensions: 3.42 in. (dia) x 5.12 in. (length) 87mm (dia) x 130mm (length) Weight: 21.8 oz. (615g) Compare to the DA 16-45/4: Maximum Diameter & Minimum Length 72.0mm x 92mm (2.8" x 3.6") Weight (wo/hood) T.B.A. So the DA is quite a bit smaller while offering 50% more zoom range. I can accept that. alex
