>> I doubt it. The M series was a major redesign from the K, and the look >> I get from the K50/1.4 and the M50/1.4 is different.
> Well, looking at bdmitrov's pages, the K, M, and A all depart somewhat > in the relationship of elements' curvature and thickness. Whether it's > the drawing or what, i do not know. I have heard it said repeatedly on > various forums that the 50/1.4 got a redesign between the M and A > series, and that the A series is a superior performer. More than that I > don't know. My opinion (and it's merely an opinion, based on various experiences and "hunches") is that the K is virtually the same optically as the SMC Takumar and the S-M-C Takumar, that the M is a little different from the K, that the A is very slightly different from the M, and that the A, F, and FA are essentially identical optically to each other. However, the differences in all cases are pretty small, and I still say that Pentax has never made a bad (or even a mediocre) 50/1.4. > I do know the A50/1.4 is great. :-) Indeed !!! ;-) Fred
