In general, Pentax seems to optimize their lenses for picture quality rather than highest resolution or contrast. They also tend to have a more nutral color tone (noticable with slides) than most Japanese lenses which tend to the red side, or German lenses that tend to the blue side. It is interesting to note that this type of optimation does not give the best numbers in magazine lens tests. And, BTW, this was so even before multi-coating (smc) which is kind of like icing on the cake.
Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 12:58 PM Subject: The Pentax Lens "Look" > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > >Hi Alan, > > >No doubt someone will correct me if I > >am wrong, but I have always admired the > >Pentax "look" which comes from the use > >of the superb SMC coating. > > >I always thought that SMC Takumar and > >SMC Pentax lenses had generally *higher* > >contrast than Nikkors but they appeared > >slightly less sharp because Nikon lenses > >tend to have over-corrected spherical > >aberration. This gave Nikkors great > >apparent sharpness but lousy bokeh. > > >I like the Pentax 'look' better, however > >there are a small number of Nikkors > >that also 'look' good. > > >I hope that doesn't make what I meant > >less clear than before. ;-) > > >John > > > I was really intrigued by these comments. I wonder if you (or someone) could > clarify that. What IS the Pentax "look?" Meaning the result -- the pictures. > And I don't mean flare or lack of it, and/or specifically bokeh, because bokeh > discussion is another thread and been there, done that. I mean the contrast, > sharpness, and the "look." ;-) > > And do you have examples on the Internet to illustrate what you said about > only a few number of Nikors looking as good as Pentax? > > Marnie aka Doe :-) >
