Mark wrote: Bit of a "straw man" argument there, since the A 3.5 f2.8 has been singled out by several users (you in particular) as a dog.
REPLY: Not really. I was trying to illustrate my opinion that todays good zoom are equally good or better than yesterdays primes. The A 35/2.8 is fairly typical for a Pentax prime lenses that folks actually use from that particular era (it tested better than all the Nikkor 35mm lenses). I was trying to illustrate the general assumption that primes are better than zooms; a generalisation that simply doesn't hold true anymore. Eg. recently somebody said that the M 80-200/4.5 was sharper than the M 200/4 or a few days ago some said that the M 24-35 zoom was sharper than the M 28/2.8. These zoom lenses aren't even modern but 70's vintage. Today there really are only optics at various quality and price level regardless of whether it is a zoom or not. All things equal a prime is better than a zoom but all things are rarely equal. Eg. Canon rerplaced the super telephotos with new IS version with twice the number of elements, and more complex than zooms, but optical quality is improved according to reports. Many 2.8 zoom lenses these days see lots of resources thrown at them by the manufacturer because the customers expects and are willing to pay. A 28/2.8 is probably going to sell mainly on it's price except for Leica glass, and it is not likely going to be a cost no object design. P�l
