On 4 Aug 2005 at 19:19, Frantisek wrote: > It has been mentioned by Putts and others as well that in order to > design an excellent (mostly SLR) lens, dimensions must not be the constrain. > In > Pentax world, this shows easily in K vs M lenses, where the K lenses are often > optically better than the corresponding M lens. It shows the most in Cinema > lenses, where even the primes are 3.5 Kg monsters... but their image quality > is > worth their weight in gold (and the price almost as well <g>).
I don't think that there is a direct correlation between size and image quality in the case of early Pentax lenses, some were just under optimized designs. A lot of the new smaller designs offer improved performance. > It's funny how much bashing is there still around Leicas. Either big > pro or big against... If you've ever used or owned Leica R (SLR) equipment (I have) then you will know that they are generally far less compact lenses than they could be, glass is often the same size as other brands of lenses but the housings are inordinately large and heavy. The M series Leica lenses however are some of the most compact and well designed in the business. And many iterations of the classic fl/speeds have become more compact and better performing over time due to improved lens design technologies and materials, just like Pentax glass. Erwin is lost in his own little hyper-technical world. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
