Somebody was wondering why the DA-type lenses seem to be so big when the whole idea was supposedly to make them small. Nikon guys have the same question about "DX" lenses.
I think the answer is that the DA lenses are smaller than they would be if they were not DA. Does anybody make a 16-45 that covers 35mm format? Sigma's 15-35 is not exactly small. Nikon's 12-24/4.0 DX is apparently about the same size as the 18-35/3.5-4.5 that it "replaces" on digital, but it's probably a lot smaller than a 12-24 for 35mm would be. I seem to recall that Sigma's 12-24 is not small, and it is noticeably SLOWER which of course cuts size. Personally, from what I can see I think 35mm format produces lenses with obout the right size and optical parameters, and I wish that camera manufacturers would give us 35mm-sized sensors rather than struggling to come out with ultra-ultra-wides of reasonable quality and size to deal with the format-size differences. Even Nikon's ridiculously big and expensive 13/5.6 can't do for APS-sized digital what a 14/2.8 does for film. I'm not sure I want to see a 9.5mm lens. DJE
