First off, can anybody tell me why it appears to be impossible to find an M or K 20mm f/4? KEH is selling a couple of A 20/2.8s for roughly the cost of a NEW FA 20/2.8 from B&H, and the optics are the same although the cosmetics and feel of the FA are arguably worse. I'd really like a 20mm pentax to take on vacation, but it's looking like my most realistic affordable bet is the mediocre 20/4.5 SMC-T on a screw-bayonet adapter (since I've got the takumar lens and converter already).
> On Wed, 3 Mar 2004, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > > > > As for zooms, don't forget that little jewel, the M 24~35, > > > and a lot of people like the M75~150. M24-35 has typical zoom problems (slow, barrel distortion, not quite as sharp as good primes) but is in fact a nice little lens, with a great collection of focal lengths for travel photography. It's going to England next year if I make it, although probably on my girlfriend's camera. > > And the M80-200/4.5, which is said to be sharper than the M200/4 at > > 200. Although I had the 75-150, I bought the 80-200 instead of the > > prime when I "needed" a 200. >From what I've seen of the M80-200/4.5 and the M200/4 I don't agree that the zoom is sharper at 200. Most 80-200 zooms are a little weak at 200, especially at wider apertures (even my $900 80-200/2.8 EDIF AF-D Nikkor). My samples of theses two Pentax lenses could of course be atypical. My girlfriend's pix with the prime are clearly sharper than those with the zoom, but she argues that the zoom is big and heavy enough that her hands shake when she handholds it, plus the zoom creep messes her up. > From: Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >M28/3.5 is clearly not the same optically as SMC-T 28/3.5 > >which is a pity as the Takumar is a killer. > > Don't worry about it. The M28/3.5 is an outstanding lens. Some say it's > not as good as the K version that preceded it (which is probably > identical to the Takumar) but I know that the M version is outstanding. If the M is anywhere near as good as the K then it is a triumph of Pentax engineering since the M has a simpler optical construction. Perhaps it is as good in the center and weaker at the edges, which is often the K/M difference. I'm not worried 'cause I've got a K30/2.8 which I find better than either 28/3.5, or for that matter better than most 28s I've tested. I think my mother has a K28/3.5, as well, if I decided I had to borrow it. I've got a Super Tak 28 and an SMC Tak 28 if I wanted to fiddle with the screw-bayonet converter, plus the lousy asanuma 28/2.8 and mediocre Tokina 28/2.8. Given these options, it is probably time to see if KEH is willing to pay me anything for my M28/2.8 If the K28/3.5 IS the same as the SMC Takumar screw-mount, can anybody explain why it is noticeably BIGGER? I think K50/1.4 is also bigger than SMC-T 50/1.4. DJE
