Originally posted by Art Vandelay II I would too. I've even pondered switching to Nikon ever since they came out with their 16-85mm. It's not a constant f/4 unfortunately, but from the reviews I've read it is wonderful lens.
To me size does matter though. As much as I'd like an f/2.8 16-90 (is that even physically possible?), I'm sure the size of such a lens would turn me off. I have no desire to lug a glass and metal brick around everywhere I go. That's why something light weight like that Sigma with a few lightweight prime or two stuffed in my pocket will suffice for me until my dream lens is made.
i dont think that collectively such a lens would be that heavy. (remember 1 vs 3)
and i think the technology is there to make it affordable
which is preciley why i vented my disappointment, i think its time everyone (manufacturers) stepped up and started building shit that was never possible or thought of before, instead they continue to feed to the needs of the general public who dont know any better.
and even then... some of the stuff isnt even "new"
my current weapon of choice for telephoto work is a constant F4.5 80-200mm Tokina, it is manual focus but has an A setting, this thing is a dream to work with, about the size of a coke can (slightly taller) with internal zooming mechanism (so nothing "sticks out" as you zoom) this thing is killer and has given me many sharp shots.
and the thing cost me 40 dollars! cash!
go and find even a slow constant aperture modern lens with auto-focus, fat chance, everything seems to be variable and plastic (my thing is metal!)
so.. yeah, i'm disappointed in Sigma for taking the easy road with this one.