Hi,
it seems that these lens tests do nothing except demonstrate their own
inadequacy. I have comparable real-world (rather than lens test) slides
taken with my M 35/2 and my M40/2.8 in which it is obvious through a
good lupe and projected to about 1m on the long edge that the M 35/2 is
much better optically than the M 40/2.8. And none which shows the 40mm
lens to be better than the 35mm. The only tests that really matter are
your own or those of authorities whom you trust through experience.
As for the ancestry, Cecchi says the A versions of the 35/2.8 & 35/2
are the same as the corresponding M lens.
---
Bob
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Saturday, April 07, 2001, 2:44:05 PM, you wrote:
> I posted this to the group on April 5 (so I thought), it's in my "sent
> items" folder and I seem to remember it coming back to me as a PDML
> posting. The response totally underwhelmed me, so it came as no surprise to
> see that the PDML archive doesn't hold my original post (a search for the
> subject line produced nothing). I'll try again.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Pål Jensen recently wrote:
> Olivier wrote:
>> Pentax-A 24mm f/2.8 Performances : 3
>> Pentax-A 35mm f/2.8 Performances : 3
>> Pentax-A* 85mm f/1.4 Performances : 3
>> Pentax-A* 135mm f/1.8 Performances : 3
>> Pentax-A* 300mm f/2.8 ED-IF Performances : 3
> I belive this sort of drivel shouldn't even be posted here. Some may
> actually believe in it. Its pure nonsense. Anyone who gives the A* 85, 135,
> and 300 above a mediocre score of "3" is positively out of their minds.
> Likewise, compare them to a true medoicre lens as the A 35/2.8.
> (snip)
> Pål,
> I agree with your dissapointment on behalf of the A* lenses for their
> average ratings on CDI. Apparently WRT lens appraisals the French have no
> soul.
> But.......
> I have an A 35/2.8 and I wouldn't call it mediocre by any standard, although
> it depends what "mediocre" means to you, as I realise that English is not
> your first language. My Lotus dictionary says mediocre is "moderate to
> inferior in quality, ordinary", but to describe this lens that way because
> it is not as good as an A* or FA* is like saying a Ferrari F355 is mediocre
> because it is not as good as an F50!
> My A 35/2.8 performs as well as any other Pentax lens in my bag (5x M, 4x A,
> 1x F). Regrettably I have no "Star" or Limited lenses to compare it with :(
> Look at these statistics that I gleaned from Boz's K-mount pages, using only
> Yoshi's results for the sake of consistency. I have had to assume that the
> M and A lenses of the same specification that Boz has bracketed together
> are optically the same lens. The optical diagrams are shared between these
> M and A lenses adding further to my belief that they are the same lenses.
> If this is true the A lens should in theory be slightly better because of
> progressive upgrades to the SMC.
> (I hope that this table makes it un-mutilated into all the different mail
> clients that PDML members are using, my apologies if it doesn't.)
> LENS CENTRE CORNER BEST APERTURE
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> K 28/2.0 83 lpm 65 lpm f/8-11
> K 30/2.8 85 lpm 71 lpm f/8
> K 35/2.0 79 lpm 59 lpm f/5.6-11
> K 35/3.5 88 lpm 72 lpm f/11
> K 50/1.4 79 lpm 65 lpm f/8
> M 28/2.0 90 lpm 65 lpm f/8-11
> M 28/3.5 77 lpm 62 lpm f/8-11
> M 35/2.0 75 lpm 53 lpm f/8-11
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> M 35/2.8 77 lpm 63 lpm f/8
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> M 40/2.8 75 lpm 64 lpm f/11
> A 50/1.7 84 lpm 74 lpm f/8 ~ f/11
> FA 28/2.8 AL 75 lpm 60 lpm f/8-11
> FA 77/1,8 Ltd 70 lpm 62 lpm f/11 ~ f/16
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> These particular lenses are included simply because directly comparable
> results were available. I started my table at 28mm which is one popular
> focal length wider than 35mm, and continued through to 50mm which is one
> popular focal length longer. The 77mm Ltd is included as evidence that pure
> statistics are not the only measure of a lens's quality.
> The A 35/2.8 (if it is at least equal to the M35/2.8) is neither the best
> nor the worst lens amongst Pentax lenses. This would make it an AVERAGE
> performer. An average Pentax lens is pretty good when measured against any
> other brand IMO :)
> Notice that the M 35/2.0 has slightly lower resolution on centre and
> significantly lower resolution out wide than the M 35/2.8, and yet the f2
> lens has been praised on this list as a very fine lens. Considering that
> the M and A versions of these lenses are the same (except for their coatings
> and outer construction) it is most puzzling that the A 35/2.8 should be
> considered as mediocre, and inferior to the A 35/2.0 (and M 35/2.0).
> Perhaps Boz or some other authority can verify or deny that, in optical
> design terms, M series 35mm lenses = A series 35mm lenses.
> And who'd've believed that a 40mm pancake would out-resolve a 77mm Limited!
> Regards,
> Anthony Farr
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
