Hi Bossa -
That article I quoted mentioned that lens as being an exception (of sorts), if you read it. But it's also $1,800, made in small numbers by hand, manual focus and (obviously) has no zoom range, requires an 82mm filter, weighs 600g, so if it's an exception - then it's really the exception that proves the rule.
Hi Twitch -
I did say 'designed for digital'. All the FF lenses you mentioned (although I don't know about the Canon lens) were 'designed for film' - I'm pretty confident that many, if not all, of those lenses will prove disappointing on digital sensors, due to the light path needing to be as close to perpendicular to the sensor as possible.
Bossa's Zeiss 21 shows that while a 20mm was once a small lens on film (FA20 2.8), on digital it's a 600g lens that costs $1,800. Also - many of Twitch's photos taken with the DA15 and DA21 on Flickr in my mind prove that APS gets the job done and does it very well...
For example - exactly what would FF bring to this image, taken by Twitch, that it's currently missing?
I think that
FF is a system that's much better when you're comparing the specifications side by side on paper, but is it really better when you're lugging it around? I was in a cave in Yallingup a few weeks back - couldn't help but notice a tourist with a FF Canon and 24-70L. It was gigantic, but he couldn't get it to shoot in total darkness. Trusty K-7 and (super cheap) 18-55 worked fine. Sure, i popped up the built in flash and at ISO2000 it was a bit noisy, but hey, it worked and I didn't have 3.5kilos and $5000++ carried down hundreds of stairs and then have to buy the postcard on the way out.