Alan Chan wrote:
It's very cheap. How can you go wrong? <g>
Was it "very cheap" when it was sold under the Pentax-A label?
Just wondering, as I usually think of a Pentax labeled lens as having some minimum level of quality...
And, for that matter, a Takumar lens was once an indicator of a superior lens, on the general lens market, so that's not meant to demean Takumar lenses...
Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan
Okay, that's one opinion... Any others?
Bad construction and a lot of flare. Stay away from non-SMC lenses.
I forgot who said that, but... what is meant by "bad construction?"
This started out as a Pentax lens. I assume a Pentax design. Did they goof?
I guess we'll never know, but it seems to me that an 11 element, constant aperture lens, with an 8 leaf shutter, is not an INexpensive method of putting a lens together!
I'm sure they didn't set out to make a "cheap" lens...
All SMC gives you is freedom from flare and such... If you use an otherwise capable non-SMC lens in less demanding situations, you can still get excellent photographs. If they had made this lens with SMC coatings, would the category immediately switch to "a great lens?"
Curious so many denigrate it...
keith whaley
