Wasnt the comparison the K35/2 not the both crappy M135/3.5 and M200/4? I think it's wrong to assume that all K/M/A lenses are inferior to all later lenses based on that comparison alone if thats what your trying to imply. Generally the M series lenses are not as good as the K they replaced because they were compromised for size over absolute image qualtiy but there are some exceptions of course...
Secondly, your comparing full frame lenses with APS format lenses. generally full frame lenses will not work as good as APS only lenses on APS because they are designed to cover wider angles, the only way to compared them fairly would be on full frame Pentax digital cameras that dont exist (yet?). you would have to compare FF 200mm image with APS 135mm image to get a fairer judgement on the lenses overall performance I would think,,, jco -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Walter Hamler Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 4:31 PM To: [email protected] Subject: FS: Pentax SMC-A 35mm f/2 "But on --manual focus-- lenses like the K/M/A which was the original comparison, the build quality effects the ease of use because its easier to manual focus a really well made lens then an el crapo. jco" I haven't entered this fray before now, BUT, I recently picked up the 50~200 DA zoom. Just out of curoisity I shot several views with the zoom at 135 and 200, and then duplicated them with the 135 M and the 200 M. I have to say the optical quality of the zoom is superior in every respect. As to mechanics, I will allow the DA to get as old as the two M versions before I pass final judgement! :-) However, The DA is half the weight of the 200 and being AF is 10X easier to use. FWIW Walt -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
