First, a great many M lenses were identical optically to either the preceding K lens, or to the following A lens,John
50/4, 100/4 & 400/5.6 are the K lenses that made it to M unchanged optically but many M lenses went to A unchanged except for slightly better coatings and, generally, lower mechanical quality.
Third, if you have to use a loupe to discern the difference between two lenses, then you've surely missed the point. We don't view pictures under microscopes (most of us, anyway), and if the difference is only microscopic, then it's not a real difference at all.
Realistically, the target market for M lenses might never have noticed the slight decrease in quality that accompanied the obvious decrease in size. DJE
I agree with both of you... as the difference is real but small. You probably need much more than an 8x10 to see a difference. Sometimes, with M lenses, resolution is not lowered compared to K ones but, rather, there might be a bit more distorsion and vignetting. I think these are harder to correct on smaller lenses.
Examples of M lenses with higher resolution than K: http://www.takinami.com/yoshihiko/photo/lens_test/acknowledgement.html
us who value optical performance more highly than small size.smaller and almost equal seems like a step backwards for those of
Well... you can always go towards the K lenses. I'd call that a sport though. Hunting.
Andre
