hi, I think my position on the this matter needs clarifying. The reason I am so "passionate" about this matter and discussion is because it goes WAY beyond a particular metering mode with K/M lenses on an *ist D.
My "desire" is not simplely K/M support of lenses on particualar bodies, my desire is to be able to trust Pentax like they were trusted for the last 40 years. This issue is somewhat clouded by terms used. To me the K/M lenses not being able to open apeture metering or open aperture AE on the current DSLRS is NOT a compatibiliy problem it's a SUPPORT issue. Non-Compatability means something new cant be made to work with something old easily, reliably, or cheaply enough. Support means something old just isnt supported. There is nothing new with istD mount that's incompatible with the old, the old just isnt supported. That's the issue with the K/M lenses on istD. What makes it worse is the support would still be EASY, CHEAP, and RELIABLE. Its not so much what they have done in this one incident as it is what they might do in the future. This is because Pentax never did anything like this with any of their products before as they always supported older lenses fully until some NEW CHANGE prevented it. There is no new change to the lens mount to necessitate the lack of support of the K/M so this is a major turning point in Pentax customer support policy in my opinion. That is far more important to me than a metering mode or given lens because what it means is a downgrade for PENTAX as a company as well as their products long term futures... Now you know why I get so riled up over this one... It's a BAD milestone for Pentax in my opinion. JCO -----Original Message----- From: David Savage [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2005 10:55 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Pentax K 2.5/200mm 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
