It would be great if it was f2, but it's not a 28mm lens... If they
are trying to make it really good then size might really be a factor.
Check out the size difference between the Voigtlander 15/4.5 and the
Zeiss 15/2.8 (and the difference in price!).
Tom
On 09/03/07, Winsor Crosby <wincros@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> There is an interview somewhere. They were trying to keep it small
> and the light rays parallel to the sensor which is probably even more
> critical with the deep wells of that style of sensor.
>
> Here it is:
>
> http://www.letsgodigital.org/en/10705/sigma_interview/
>
>
> Winsor
> Long Beach, California, USA
>
>
>
>
> On Mar 8, 2007, at 6:46 PM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>
> > Intersting. And 28mm equivalent to boot. But f/4???? Give me a
> > break.
> > It should have been an f/2 or better.
>
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|