I find this a bit weird as I assume (correct me if I'm wrong) the M 35/2.8 is optically identical to the A 35/2.8, the latter among Pentax weaker efforts (probably in the league with the A 28/2.8 and A 135/2.8 lenses). According to tests I've seen the A 35/2 is apparently even worse.
Pal
And it was M35/2.8 lens for sure? test was done about 15 year ago I think.The K lenses were not part of the "competition" as they had been, at that time, discontinued.
Even better than Zeiss? I asked since many people believe K 35mm lenses are alegedly much better.
Alek
Now, again, "much better"? Certainly not. The difference between these lenses are small. See for yourself:
http://www.takinami.com/yoshihiko/photo/lens_test/pentax_35.html
M35/2.8 is better than K35/2 almost everywhere. But all these differences are small and may vary from one lens to another. If the test was done on 5 lenses of each, we would have a better picture...
I personnally prefer K lenses because they handle better (I have quite big hands). But if I travel, I use M lenses. The difference between these lenses optically is very small.
Having said that, K35/3.5 is in a special class. It is one of the highest resolution lens ever made, and have no flare even with spot lights in front of you. But rather big and slow.
Andre
--
