It is not that far way, but it is both a matter of cost and competition. Even if the D200 comes out in a year's time, I (who owns a 12-24 DX) would have allegedly wasted less money (via a drop in valuation) than a Canon user who had switched from a D60 to 10D in 9 months! :bsmilie:NorthernLights said:Whoever gets a larger market share and have larger funding for R&D. Then, a full frame prosumer DSLR is a target not too far away. Then the WA's will truely behave as wides and not some 3/4 part used glass. . Everyone paid for 100% of the glass.
That's how I see it since Canon has not come out with DX lens. The others like Tamron are just trying to ride on the temporary development phase. Even Sigma's lastest 12-24 lens will not be digital... :devil:
So you are saying that Canon should still make people wait for FF to come to town (at an affordable price like the 10D is now), while they stubbornly refuse to make an equivalent to the DX lenses, depriving the existing digital users OEM WA lenses? Wow, Canon must then be a cult then, with its followers still praising them even when Canon inflicts difficulties and pains on them... IMO, the EF-S is a lot worse than DX lenses: you cannot use them on any other existing camera in the whole world, digital or otherwise.
Sigma, Tamron and other 3rd party lens makers ride a different business model. They MUST make their products as widely usable as possible else they will get no sales. Their quality is usually lower and acceptable by non pros but rarely by pros (else Canon and Nikon cannot sell their own lenses).
As for Sigma's 12-24, don't get your hopes up too high. Many Canon users will flock to it as there is no other alternative, but the quality is not confirmed, the large threadless front end is a pain. If it was so easy, why can't Canon come out with something like that?