I find the responses interesting from this point of view: I've always had "faith" that early SMC walloped the competition, and that therefore early K mount lenses have an advantage over the early competition. This, plus the fact that older well-made lenses have a very long life if cared for, has made buying early primes a no-brainer.
But the competition has had a few decades to catch up, and Pentax apparently still has the edge. Can you imagine an ad campaign that simply compares Pentax to C*n*n and N*k*n IntoTheSun shots?
Paul wrote:
Hi,
I have a blad and i find that the coating on my T* 80mm is not as good as my pentax primes.
The coating on Leica lenses is also quite good, but not as good as SMC.
Regards,
Paul
----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 10:02 AM
Subject: Re: Canon 50mm and flare, part deaux
On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 20:52:36 +0100, Bob Walkden wrote:
How 'bout it folks, is SMC hype or real?
I never knew what flare was until I switched from Pentax to Contax.
I have to agree with Bob on this one. And I'm not kidding or exaggerating. Sure, I'd encountered "point flare" a couple of times when the sun was directly in the scene; I'd even try to induce it sometimes for "arteestic" purposes. But, until I tried a couple of cheapo third-party lenses, I'd never encountered "point flare" where more than one image of the aperture showed up or "veiling flare".
That said, I'm amazed by the flare resistance of the Zenitar 16mm f/2.8 fisheye. Which is good, because the sun's in or near the frame at least half the time with a 180* field of view. :-)
TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
