>From: Joe Wilensky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>While the M 24-50 has a mediocre reputation,
the A 24-50 was a newdesign (same design was used for the F 24-50) and I have one.
I didn't know there was an M24-50! Seems odd that there would be both a 24-35 and a 24-50 in the same series. In general that has not been a very popular zoom range.
Pentax had to redesign the M24-50 because of a big flare problem with it. This lens could pick up the color of the surroundings, which is a lesser known flare related problem. Only mention I have found of this is in the reference book "Ilford Manual of Photography". Second sentence is the rare one.
"In colour photography, flare is likely to lead to a desaturation of colours, since flare light consists of a mixture of light from all parts of the scene, which usually approximate to white light. It may also lead to colour casts, sometimes resulting from objects outside the scene photographed."
With sun in my back, I took a photo of white snow, surrounded by green spruces. Few spruces were in the scene. The SMC Takumar 28/3.5 at f8 gave white snow. The M24-50 at 28mm and f8, gave green snow. Yikes!
I sold mine. The M24-50 would have a value as a collector's piece though. Of even more value would be the elusive set-screw lens shade for the lens.
I don't know if anybody has ever TRIED to make a really good 24-50 zoom. Pros don't seem to have used such a thing. Nikon made a 25-50 f/4.0 that was quite well regarded, and also as big as you'd expect a good quality 24-50 f/4.0 to be. It wasn't a big success financially.
Minolta also made one, rather well regarded "for a zoom". I think it went through AF times like Pentax F24-50.
Andre
