"tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >The older teles were very nice, and the newer ones that I've used are >on par or better.
Mark Roberts added: "And the Limiteds (wide, normal and tele) are in a class by themselves." Most of us would agree with the PDMLer who wrote that the SMCs were superior in build quality. But it would be difficult to state categorically that the older designs were better: Some M and A lenses that were derived from the original SMC designs proved to be "lesser" lenses: 28/2M < 28/2K 28/3.5M < 28/3.5K 35/2M < 35/2K 50/1.4M < 50/1.4K 85/2M < 85/1.8K 100/2.8M < 105/2.8K 135/3.5M < 135/3.5K 150/3.5M < 150/4K Some K (SMC) lenses were never produced in M or A series, and are considered superb even by today's standards: 24/3.5K 35/3.5K 500/4.5K Some M or A lenses that were derived from SMC designs were optically equal or superior: 24/2.8A = 24/2.8K 200/2.8A = 200/2.5K 400/5.6M > 400/5.6K 400/5.6A > 400/5.6K Some M or A lenses were new optical designs, equal to or better than their SMC antecedents: 16/2.8 A fisheye > 17/4 K fisheye 20/2.8 A > 20/4 K 85/1.4 A* !! 100/2.8 A macro = 100/4 K macro 135/1.8 A* !! 200/4 A* macro 300/2.8 A 300/4 M* = 300/4 K And a few M or A lenses were new optical designs that were inferior to their SMC antecedents: 135/2.8A < 135/2.4K With the F and FA series, the company seemed to start with a clean sheet of paper and began to improve on their A designs: 24/2 FA 35/2 FA 50/1.4 F and FA 100/2.8 F and FA macro 135/2.8 F and FA 300/4.5 F and FA And of course, the FA Limiteds, which virtually have no equal: 31/1.8 43/1.9 77/1.8 I'm surely omitting some lenses, but my point is: Some M and A designs improved on the Ks, some fell short. The 1990s to 2001 period saw a wave of fresh designs that equaled or surpassed anything from the good old days.
