But in Yoshihiko test there is small difference and when I asked him about these lenses he recommended K ones, K35/3.5 and K35/2.0, according to him much better! And new FA35/2.0 is probably very good lens. Alek Użytkownik Andre Langevin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisał: >>I find this a bit weird as I assume (correct me if I'm wrong) the M >>35/2.8 is optically identical to the A 35/2.8, the latter among >>Pentax weaker efforts (probably in the league with the A 28/2.8 and >>A 135/2.8 lenses). According to tests I've seen the A 35/2 is >>apparently even worse. >Pal > >>And it was M35/2.8 lens for sure? test was done about 15 year ago I think. >>Even better than Zeiss? I asked since many people believe K 35mm >>lenses are alegedly much better. >>Alek > >The K lenses were not part of the "competition" as they had been, at >that time, discontinued. > >Now, again, "much better"? Certainly not. The difference between >these lenses are small. See for yourself: > >http://www.takinami.com/yoshihiko/photo/lens_test/pentax_35.html > >M35/2.8 is better than K35/2 almost everywhere. But all these >differences are small and may vary from one lens to another. If the >test was done on 5 lenses of each, we would have a better picture... > >I personnally prefer K lenses because they handle better (I have >quite big hands). But if I travel, I use M lenses. The difference >between these lenses optically is very small. > >Having said that, K35/3.5 is in a special class. It is one of the >highest resolution lens ever made, and have no flare even with spot >lights in front of you. But rather big and slow. > >Andre >-- > --------------r-e-k-l-a-m-a-----------------
Masz dość płacenia prowizji bankowi ? mBank - załóż konto http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbank
