On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 01:10:24PM -0700, Godfrey DiGiorgi scripsit: > On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 10:48 AM, paul stenquist<[email protected]> > wrote: > > I'm glad you find the 35/2 superior to the 31/1.9 limited. ... > > I didn't say that, Paul. I said I didn't find it 2x to 3x the quality > as implied by 3x the price. I also found that it flared in various > circumstances and was difficult to fit with a decent lens hood.
Price-performance never scales in a linear way, though. 3x the price is going to be maybe another 50% in performance if you're starting at "good". (As opposed to starting at "does not spontaneously catch fire".) The 35/2 is (one hopes) at the point where the linear fit to the price/performance curve starts to go away, since that's generally where a regular production prime lens belongs; that should translate into "this product is at a point of ideal economy on the price/performance curve". The 31/1.8 is well past that point on the curve. That's why it's a Limited, which is supposed to translate into "this is a good as we can do and still believe anyone will buy it, and to Nifelhel with price or value optimization, this is about pure, screaming performance"; the DA Limiteds extend that with "in this especially small, all-metal form factor". The lack of the 31/1.8 lens hood being useful on digital I can't really fault them for; the 31 was designed at a time before digital was a meaningful concern. The DA 15mm Ltd. testing optically worse than the DA 12-24 I think Pentax could be faulted for, but that depends on how much you value compactness and whether or not you think the "worse" will matter. -- Graydon -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
