----- Original Message ----- From: "Alin Flaider" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "SETH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 1:53 AM Subject: SMC again (was Re: Pentax AF 100 mm f3.5 micro) > > Given the expiration of original SMC patents, we might expect that > most other manufacturers optics must be coated at least up to the > level of the first SMC lenses. Even Pentax acknowledged recently > that SMC is no longer a technology, but rather a brand name. > However, in my experience this doesn't appear to be true. I've > been playing with and examined pictures taken with original K > lenses, BBAR Tamrons, Sigma, Canon L and common glass, zooms and > primes included, and I can tell no one came even close to SMC. In > fact, the modern Canons were among the poorest, flaring like an old > russian single-coated Helios. Ok, but has anyone here actually compared the images taken with Pentax 28-200 vs. the equivalent Tamron? Given its 16 element construction, one would expect any differences in coating to jump out. Or is this rebadged Tamron (and similarly Vivitar 100/3.5) simply an example where SMC is merely a "brand name"? > Besides, Pentax upgraded SMC multicoatings with each new > generation of lenses, and this is obvious with FA lenses performing > visibly better in this respect than their 20 years old ancestors. > Now latest FAs and Limiteds come in ghostless SMC flavor and owners > attest it's truly superior. In fairness, it shouldn't be unexpected for owners of lenses to attest to their superiority. It'd be more surprising if someone bought an expensive lens and proclaimed that it was inferior to a cheap zoom. - 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.
