On Jul 1, 2005, at 8:15 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Someone Wrote:
What I'm thinking is that the optics in the A28/2 are
supposed to be terrific, and that lens is nice and small.
I have one of those lenses. It is nice and small. The optics, IMO,
and in
the opinion of some others (there are some sample photos that
someone put
up on one of the Pentax lens sites) are only so-so. Not bad ... I
found
the lens pretty soft with a fair amount of light fall off until
about 5.6,
when things come together pretty well. It's a nice little lens, but
terrific is not a term I'd use to describe it. I'd use terrific to
describe
some A* lenses, some Leica and Contax glass, etc ....
That Someone was me, Shel. Thanks for your opinion.
Takinami posted a set of lens performance charts to DPReview.com
wherein the M28/2 was one of the highest performing lenses on
resolution.
http://www.takinami.com/yoshihiko/photo/lens_test/pentax_28-30_c.html
The A28/2 is identical, optically, to the M28/2 ... it was only a
mount change as far as I can tell from BDimitrow. Several other folks
on that forum have commented on how good it was as well. Of course, a
resolution test tells little about contrast, out of focus rendering,
or CA (on film vs digital) etc.
I've never had one to use so I am speaking purely from the comments
I've heard, photos displayed as representative, and from the
resolution chart I saw, comparing to my A28/2.8 as reference. The f/2
version seems to be quite a nice performer from those references.
Another friend has the K28/3.5, which is supposed to be "terrific",
if I may.
Godfrey
