Marnie aka Doe wrote: > > 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." ;-)
Marnie, This is a very subjective thing. To me, the Pentax "look" means that the lens has been optimised in a range of ways, not just for sharpness and distortion like Nikon or Canon lenses appear to be. I suspect Nikon and Canon pay far more attention to MTF (a measure of sharpness) than Pentax does. So, in my opinion, Pentax lenses have more rounded qualities, and generally don't sacrifice good bokeh and three-dimensional qualities for higher MTF that I neither require nor desire! ;-) > 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? No, ever since Paal Jensen told me that judging optical quality from scanned images posted to a web site was a waste of time, I have duly obeyed! But the Nikkors I referred to include the 85mm f/1.4, the 105mm f/2.5, the 180mm f/2.8 and the 75-150mm Nikon Series E, which never got the "Nikkor" badge. In my opinion, those are the Nikkors to buy if you want the same "look" as you can more easily get with a wide range of Pentax glass. That is purely my personal opinion, and others will disagree. But my opinion is very strongly held, and it was enough to persuade me to abandon Nikon and buy only Pentax for my SLR outfit. Well, I do have one Carl Zeiss (20mm) and one Tamron (90mm) lens, but all the rest are SMC Pentax! John
