>>>> [the "second" M 28/2.8] was the late production before the switch to >>>> the A28/2.8 and is supposed to be better quality.
>>> But the A 28/2.8 is not exactly spectacular, either, is it? >> Not spectacular compared to the best of what is out there, but... I have >> used both M and A versions of the 28/2.8, and they turn out perfectly >> acceptable pictures. I understand. However, in the context of this thread (where an M 28/2.8 was "won" on eBay for an astronomical price), "perfectly acceptable pictures" can be had with a lot of pretty pedestrian 28mm lenses under a lot of conditions. I was just suggesting that any "not exactly spectacular" lens would not be worth spending the proverbial arm-and-a-leg for, that's all. (Keep in mind that my own personal opinion is that Pentax made very, very few K, M, and A lenses that it could not be proud of.) A few years ago I had been in the process of assembling a small manual focus kit of used but "minty" Pentax gear (centered on a nice Super Program) for a niece of mine. I was trying to use only A lenses (so that she - a photo neophyte - could start out shooting in Program mode). I picked up an A 28/2.8 at a pretty good price, and I (naturally) had to play around with it (for "quality control testing purposes", mind you - <g>) before passing the kit on to my niece. My impression of the lens was that it was certainly decent enough (for "perfectly acceptable pictures"), and I am sure was entirely adequate for the w/a lens in that kit. > I quite like the FA 28mm f/2.8 despite a little vignetting. Sure. My A 28/2 vignettes a bit at full aperture, too. (I am not sure how much of this is due to what I would call "true vignetting", where the corners are darkened due to the lens construction, or "light falloff", which is due entirely to just the optical design, but that's another question.) Fred
