First, a great many M lenses were identical optically to either the preceding K lens, or to the following A lens, so I don't think that in those (many) cases anybody can credibly claim that the Ks or As were better.
Second, as has been pointed out elsewhere, one of the attractions of the Pentax system is the petite construction of both cameras and lenses, compared to competing products from Leitz, Zeiss, Nikon and Canon. Those who take pictures seated behind a tripod can choose a two-ton Canon lens without fear of the consequences, but those who hand-hold their cameras, unless built like bears, value the light weight and small size of Pentax kit, especially the M lenses (and cameras).
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.
Fourth, if a lens will fit in a pocket, it's more likely to be there on the scene when you need it than if it's a huge, heavy beast that needs its own trolley.
Fifth, I don't think Cartier-Bresson ever used an SLR, but if he were to, I'd bet it would be an M camera with an M lens. And to my taste, CB beats pictorialists like AA hands down.
That's my considered opinion, assisted by a small Bowmore.
John
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 14:48:53 -0600 (CST), <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: Andre Langevin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I will also admit to distrusting the M lenses categorically due to their
smaller size, even with plenty of examples that bigger does not
necessarily imply better optical performance.
It seems to me that what Pentax and some other manufacturers have tried to do in the 70s (following Olympus) was to make smaller and lighter lenses that are AT LEAST ALMOST AS GOOD as their bigger couterparts.
Given the great reputation the K lenses have, and presumably had, it makes sense that Pentax strove to make them smaller rather than better (since they were already quite good). The problem is the "almost as good" issue. Smaller and equal would have been fine, but smaller and almost equal seems like a step backwards for those of us who value optical performance more highly than small size.
The evidence is that Pentax might have overstretched themselves technologically, at least in the eyes of picky optical geeks. Whatever changed in the "A" era, the lenses seem to have regained their quality. In the '70s, Pentax just wasn't up to making small lenses quite as good as the old large ones, but by the '80s they were. In the '80s they also embarked on a series of lenses designed to be bigger but better. Realistically, the target market for M lenses might never have noticed the slight decrease in quality that accompanied the obvious decrease in size. For 3x5 prints, which is what the average amateur seems to have as the output goal of his photography (OK, 4x6 these days...) you really don't need much lens quality. Most amateurs carry the camera more than they use it, so weight matters.
I compared the big Takumar 200/3.5 with the M 200/4, taking the same photo and checking details in 2700 dpi scans and they showed the same resolution and practically the same contrast (maybe a dash better in the M lens). In that case, Pentax has not significantly improved the optical quality of these 200mm lenses between the 1960 and 1980 designs, they have improved their portability.
This is honestly a historical weak spot for Pentax. The M200/4 is not only smaller than the Takumar and K 200/4, it is smaller than the Takumar 200/5.6! Until the M200, pentax 200s were just too big. My 180/2.8 AIS nikkor is not much bigger than the SMC Tak 200/4, and the AF 180 is smaller yet. In 300s, Pentax was more size-competitive. In 150s, pentax has an unique edge over everbody else...
Interesting to hear that the 4-element 200/3.5 ST does as well as it does.
I'd expect the 5-element 200/4 ST to outperform it. Perhaps it does--I
haven't put that much mileage on my screw-mount 200s.
(The missing link here is the 200/4. I only know that Modern Photography in feb 77 gave the K lens very low corner contrast at all apertures.)
I've got a Super Tak 200/4, and recently a SMC Tak 200/4, which appears
to be the same optically as the K200/4. Contrast isn't great, and
sharpness isn't obviously better than the M200/4 from what I can tell
given my little use of it. The non-SMC version doesn't handle backlight well.
Perhaps I am simply jaded in that ED glass and other technologies have
made a much bigger difference in the performance of long teles and wide
wides compared to the traditional designs of yesteryear than they have
for more normal focal lengths. By 200mm, the older designs are presumably
showing their weaknesses, and I've been shooting ED or A* 200s for fiteen
years now.
I found size an important factor for normal and moderate WA lenses when you need ease of use, as in stage photography. The smaller M focussing rings are a pain to use when you have to work fast. But for landscape photography, for example in the mountain, when you have all your time after putting that heavy pack-sack besides you, it's another matter : smaller lenses are good for your knees!
Yes. I find the Nikkor equivalent of M lenses to be too slow to focus
for sports because the barrels are so small you have to turn them through
too great an arc.
My travel kits are much lighter than the bag I carry for work, although
bulk is almost as much of an issue as weight--a couple of little primes in
a pouch is a lot better than that big Domke F2 bag over the shoulder even
if it is empty!
DJE
-- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
