Optically, yes. They gained their reputation because of the lack of edge sharpness as compared to (a) the earlier K & sm lenses, and (b) Nikon.
It was interesting to read magazine reviews in the 70s. Nikon was the sharpest, period. Resolution was the ultimate goal of lens manufacturers and their respective marketing departments. But the other distortions were ignored. So some of thos early Nikon lenses, with very high resolution, had some terrible characteristics in other respects. This was ignored until the "zoom boom" when people really started to pay attention to barrel & pincushion problems. Since then Nikon has returned to more normal optical designs. Look @ Photodo. Everybody's specs are roughly the same. (The Pentax lens that really excells is the FA 50/2.8 Macro!) Look @ prints. You can't tell the difference, generally speaking. Interesting as well, back then NOBODY compared themselves to Canon. Only to Nikon and earlier Pentax. The "M" lenses were criticized as being "soft". And while many "A" lenses share the same optical formula as their "M" counterparts, both glasses and coatings improved with time. The cooler coatings of the "A" lenses provided higher contrast and helped a bit in the resolution tests. Today, comparing the best lenses made by each company, there's little or no difference in results. The only complaint I've ever read is in regard to Canon having some poor color reproduction because of the coating scheme they use. (More a problem with reversals than prints as machines seem to compensate some for color shift automatically.) The difference boils down to: (a) lens selection, (b) a couple of lens features, (c) the a/f capabilities of the bodies, (d) and the money available to the marketing departments. These thoughts are behind my statements in an earlier post: PJ bodies are Nikon's forte. (Canon & MZ-S & LX ain't bad, though) Fast AF & IS makes canon the winner with high-speed sports. Probably best for wildlife as well. Pentax' shorter lenses (Limited) would be the best for people shooting. But for general-purpose shooting, it really don't matter much at all what one shoots. The neg is the size of a postage stamp and (always) has some perspective distortions that can only be compensated for by going to larger negs. mnsho, Collin "sheet film sure is a lot of work but you only get out what you put in" Brendemuehl >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?
