> Let the experts Now Rage Forth Well, I'm no expert, but I do have my "expert opinions" anyway...
> So, you A lovers, which ones are built to last and have good > optical quality? Mind you, I'm an "M" fan despite them being > regarded, generally, as the worst optically. Size, weight, > and build quality makes me hang on to M's. My KA 50/1.7 might > be a good optic, but that there plastic aperature ring is NOTCHY, > and I tend to shoot in aperature priority or manual. I ain't shot > Program or Shutter Priority in Lordy Nose How Long. Many of the A lenses are ~nearly~ as well built as their M predecessors. "Going the other direction", most of the A lenses seem better built than the "typical" F lens (although some of the F lenses are better built than others, of course). The A 50/1.7 is a known "lemon" for its aperture ring, but not all of the A lenses have that problem at all (although, admittedly, not all of them ~feel~ quite as nice to use as their M counterparts). In fact, the A 50/1.7 may be the "low water mark" for "plastickyness" for A lens designs. I'd say that all of the other A 50's (even including the "budget" A 50/2) are better built. (This is all too bad, inasmuch as some Pentaxers - although I'm not one of 'em - dearly love the 50/1.7 design optically.) > I've got the KA 35-70 F4. Despite people disparaging it's build, > it seems sturdier to me than my KA 50/1.7, which has a _very_ > dicey aperature ring. I therefore just don't use it often. The A 35-70/4 is probably my own "cheesiest" A lens for what its build quality feels like, but it does seem to be built solidly enough to be adequate in its construction (despite its "plasticky" feel). In any event, its aperture ring does seem adequate (and not overly "notchy" feeling - <g>). > Another question: is the KA 35-105/3.5 either a) as good as, > b) about the same, or c) not quite as good as -- the KA 35-70/f4? The build quality of the A 35-105/3.5 is very high (as is the build quality of its sibling, the A 28-135/4, which I do prefer to it). The 35-105 is a lot heavier, of course. (Hmmm... I guess a couple of users have had problems with the 35-105/3.5 staying parfocal when zooming, but I had never noticed that problem with the samples that I had used.) The 35-105 has a better telephoto range than the 35-70. <vbg> The A 35-70/4 has a much nicer "macro" function than the A 35-105/3.5. There is less barrel distortion at the wide end with the 35-105/3.5 than with the 35-70/4 (whose 35mm barrel distortion is its worse trait, in my opinion). Fred
