On Apr 4, 2005 10:51 PM, David Oswald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm curious. In the days of 35mm SLR's, Pentax had a few ED lenses; > mostly fairly long telephotos. > > Now that DSLR's are the up-and-coming thing, suddenly we're seeing ED > glass in the 16-45, 50-200 (as yet unreleased), and the 12-24 (newly > announced). AL elements have also become more commonplace. > > So the question is, what's going on here? I see a few possibilities: > * ED glass has suddenly become cheap enough to use in a broader range of > lenses. > * ED glass has become necessary to produce acceptible results with DSLR's. > * ED glass has become enough of a recognized feature that using it pays > dividends in improved lens sales. > * Pentax has become committed to producing better zooms than ever > before, possibly to try to close the door on 3rd party lenses (much like > SMC does). > > Much as I love my Pentax equipment, I can't help but wonder if the > sudden proliferation of ED glass in Pentax's DA lenses is because > without the ED glass the lenses on DSLR's wouldn't live up to the > performance of their FA equivilants in 35mm format. > > The same question could apply to the proliferation of AL elements in > recent lenses, though this trend actually began back around the late > 90's, so it's not as new of a trend. > > I would love to hear that AL and ED elements common in recent Pentax > lenses represent actual improvements to image quality, size, weight, > and/or cost/value over lenses produced without these types of elements. > Is this actually the case?
ED stands for what? -frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
