In my experience some of the A lenses were crap, but an awful lot of them were just as good as the Ms. Bear in mind that the A range ran from cheap consumer rubbish kit lenses all the way through to the A*s.
The only non-M/A lens I owned was the K 28/2, which was certainly no slouch. -- Bob > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of J. C. O'Connell > Sent: 09 January 2007 22:45 > To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' > Subject: RE: FS: Pentax SMC-A 35mm f/2 > > I know this may sound like piling on, but its not, > as I have stated this many times in the past, but > there is/was a also a build quality degradation from K to M > series too, > but > not as much as from M to A. In fact, based on hundreds > (maybe thousands) of Pentax lenses I have had in my > possession over the years, the Super-Taks and Early > SMC-Taks were the pinnable of mechanical refinement > in their MF lens series IMHO. The late rubberized SMC takumars > were slightly worse, and the early K about the same as those, > then the M's even more slightly worse, and then the A series much > worse then M series. I have only had a few F or later lenses and those > were AF so I wont comment on those but there is > definately distictive mechanical quality differences > between the Pentax Man Focus lens series and it went downhill > over time > most likely for cost reasons to stay competitive. Thats > where the old saying they dont make 'em like they used > comes true....This is one of the reasons I am still upset > about the lack of DSLR full support of K/M lenses, I simply do > not like ( hate might be a better word ) the A series lenses > for this reason alone. they just feel like ^%$^$* compared to > a nice K series or Super/SMC Takumar lens. > jco > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of > Digital Image Studio > Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 5:30 PM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: FS: Pentax SMC-A 35mm f/2 > > > On 10/01/07, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Well if you count all the ones I got and sold > > over the years in pkg. deals, at least a couple > > dozen total. I still have a few mint ones in my collection too but > > even they are crass compared to the M and K ( even M42 too > ) versions > > mechanically, both the focus rings and aperture rings feel $#%$#%# > > and I am talking like new, perfect condtion lenses > > too. They just are simply not as mechanically refined > > from what I have had the opportunity to see.... > > I havent owned every singly model, no, thats why I said > > "most" instead of "all" .... How many mint condtion > > K and M lenses have you acually owned? ? ? > > Sill have two, but I've owned about ten over the years, mostly M, yes > they feel good but in reality the top end A series lenses that I have > retained are practically just as good. > > -- > Rob Studdert > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA > Tel +61-2-9554-4110 > UTC(GMT) +10 Hours > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ > Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 > > -- > 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 > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
