>First off, let me say that I own many Pentax lenses including the 15mm, 35mm >K 3.5, 28mm K 3.5, 30 mm 2.8, 120mm 2.8, 100mm f4, 200 f2.5mm, 300mmf4A*, >400mm f5.6, just to name a few. But I don't for a minute think that they are >far superior to other lenses.
It's not about far superiority but the fact that you're buying into a certain optical look. If you ignore it, then it's just fine but why then buy anything with K-mount if you just want the job done? > They get the job done and I would wager >that no one could tell if the images were shot with or without Pentax lenses >any more than you could tell if they were shot with a Nikon or Canon lens. You'll certainly see the difference if you have references. If you put two slides on the light table shot with different lenses you'll see the difference, particularly in color rendition. >It's not the lenses that make the shot. They are simply a tool to get the job >done. A good lens is a good lens. It isn't that simple. I mean, you can use the same argument about anything like "food is food". A car is a car - it's the driver that counts. I'm sure some doesn't see the finer things in lenses but I've learned to appreciate the certain characteristics of (most) Pentax lenses over the years. I cannot understand why using Pentax if not to take advantage of their greatest plusses; the lenses including SMC. >So give up the snobbery about Pentax lenses, they're good, we love them but >there are other lenses that are just as good and many that are -- dare I say >it -- even better. Perhaps, but none of them are third party lenses. P�l - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
