I tend to agree. Most of the M are not up to K standards. But they are still better build quality than a lot of the A series... JCO
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 10:07 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: M lenses On Tue, 7 Oct 2003, Mark Roberts wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > KEH.com is knee-deep in M lenses. > > But they can't keep later lenses in stock. This should tell us > something. OK, here's a question for those of you with broader experience of pentax lenses (I've used K, M, and A*)--are the "M" lenses the low-water mark of pentax optics? I would think either that or sales volume accounts for their prevalence on the used market. In almost every case the "M" lens that replaced a "K" lens is not as well thought of. Often, the "A" lens that replaced the "M" lens is better thought of. My guess is that in miniaturizing the "M" series pentax did make compromises optically and only gained it back with better manufacturing technology and design tweaks in the later lenses. I can't offhand think of any of the pentax legends that are "M" lenses only, except perhaps the 20mm f/4. Most of the legendary lenses are either "K" lenses that date from the screw-mount era (85 f/1.8, 105 f/2.5), new "K" lenses (18 f/3.5, 30 f/2.8, 200 f/2.5), or newer "A*" and "FA limited" top-of-the-line glass. DJE