As I've been reading this thread I'm thinking to myself, "J.C.O., you certainly are PASSIONATE about this".
I appreciate your desire to see full K & M lens support, but frankly I'm less interested in a lenses ability to communicate with the cameras meter than I am in it's optical performance. As you've said there are many fine K & M lenses out there, but the thing is they still take good pictures. The way your carrying on it's as if these lens are now incapable of taking decent photographs. The "green" & AE button stop down metering solution is in no way perfect, but it does work. And the thing is, even with the loss of meter sensitivity caused by stop down metering, with digital, you can check the exposure results. And if they're off, make adjustments accordingly. Hell I do this with my A & FA lenses all the time. Now I ask you. Have you actually taken a D/DS fitted with a K or M lens fitted and tried it out in the field, gone back to your computer and looked at the results? Your blowing this lack of full compatibility out of proportion. The lenses still gather light & they still render an image FULL STOP It could be worse. Pentax could have completely redesigned the lens mount. Dave On 9/18/05, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > too bad pentax has yet to make a DSLR to fully support > them. There were/are some really nice K/M lenses that > arent getting the digital bodies they deserve. We need a higher > resolution body with full K/M mount lens support and full frame > wouldn't hurt either IMHO. Its really sad too because it would > only take one really good body to take advantage of dozens of really great > K/M > lenses.... > jco > > -----Original Message----- > Wrom: REXCAXZOWCONEUQZAAFXISHJEXXIMQZUIV > Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2005 8:55 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Pentax K 2.5/200mm > > > i have K200/2.5 and K135/2.5 and consider them some of the very best lenses. > definitely way above average. > > best, > mishka > > On 9/17/05, Fred <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Not very long ago, someone posted a very nice shot (brown/yellow > > > leaves) made with this lens. About the same time someone posted a > > > messaage saying a lens like this was auctioned for a rather large > > > price. I guess we were making jokes about the "unfortunate" buyer. > > > What is it with this lens? Is it good, bad or average? I thought > > > "the leaves" looked excellent! > > > > 1. I once had an A* 200/2.8 and a K 200/2.5 at the same time (I had > > the A* 200/2.8 first and I stumbled into a mint K 200/2.5 later on). > > I sold the > > A* 200/2.8. I kept the K 200/2.5. > > > > 2. The K 200/2.5 is one of only two Pentax SMC K (pre-A) lenses (the > > other being the sweet SMC K 135/2.5) that I plan on keeping for use, > > along with a bunch of A lenses and a few F and FA lenses, on my new > > DS. > > > > 3. The above three lenses (K 135/2.5, K 200/2.5, and A* 200/2.8) are > > the only three Pentax lenses that have the exact same basic optical > > design (according to lens element diagrams). It was an excellent > > design. > > > > I'd say that the "unfortunate" buyer would have been "unfortunate" > > only if he/she paid far too much for the lens or if the lens was > > defective. In any event, ~I~ consider myself very ~fortunate~ to have > > a K 200/2.5. It's a superb lens. > > > > Fred > > > > > > > -- Dave
