[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >On Tue, 7 Oct 2003, Mark Roberts wrote: > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >> > KEH.com is knee-deep in M lenses. >> >> But they can't keep later lenses in stock. This should tell us >> something. > >OK, here's a question for those of you with broader experience of pentax >lenses (I've used K, M, and A*)--are the "M" lenses the low-water mark >of pentax optics?
They are considered so by some, but I don't think it's an overly broad generalization. > I would think either that or sales volume accounts for > their prevalence on the used market. I think it's mostly sales volume (the M lenses were from the era of the ME and ME Super, hugely successful cameras which sold in great numbers - along with lenses to match). Also, M lenses were mostly primes and we're living in a zoom age now for the most part. > In almost every case the "M" lens that replaced a "K" > lens is not as well thought of. Not always. The M300/4.0 is a good example of a stellar M lens, as is the M50/1.7 which replaced the K55/1.8. I think there's more psychology than most people would like to admit in the low opinion many people have of the M lenses: bigger must be better. > Often, the "A" lens that replaced the "M" lens is better thought of. In actual practice, the differences are very, very small with the exception of zoom lenses. No surprise here: The A lenses came when increasing computer power made the quality and range of zooms improve by leaps and bounds. >I can't offhand think of any of the pentax legends that are >"M" lenses only, except perhaps the 20mm f/4. M75-150/4.0, M28/3.5? And of course, many well-regarded A lenses are simply the same optical design as the M predecessor in different packaging (50/1.7, 300/4.0 etc.) I think the M lenses get neglected because they don't have the heft and luxurious construction of the K lenses and don't have the "A" setting of the later ones. They're kind of stuck in no man's land as far as panache goes. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
