Thanks Fred,
I wonder if sometimes I am too attached to Pentax
glass - after all there are lots of other good independent lenses out there
from the likes of Tamron, Sigma and others.
I remember paying horrendous money for a Pentax aluminium trunk case in the
mid 80's just because it had the Pentax badge - I was young and single then
;) - now I see independent aluminium cases for a fraction of the price I
paid.
Still, I have at least let go of my blinkered view on buying only NEW Pentax
gear - but a lot of therapy still to go before I put non Pentax glass on the
Super As ;)
Pat
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Pat Curran" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2004 8:35 PM
Subject: Re: Thanks Guys (135/2.8 A Rating)
> > It looks like the SMC 'M' lenses very often out do their newer 'A'
> > stable mates from what I can see reading PDML posts.
>
> In my opinion, I do not think that this is usually the case, Pat.
> In many cases, the M and A lenses are optically virtually identical.
> Sometimes there may be mere subtle optical differences between them.
> Sometimes the A lenses may show distinct optical improvements (but
> not really all that often). The A 135/2.8 you asked about is
> certainly one glaring exception, and I don't think your statement
> quoted above is true.
>
> > I have two reasons for hunting out used 'A' lenses over the older
> > 'M's.
>
> > 1) My 35mm system is built around two Super A bodies.
>
> > 2) When I upgrade to the * ist D next year, I want to carry over
> > as much compatibility as possible with my lenses.
>
> These are two good reasons for choosing A lenses, where possible,
> Pat. But, don't overlook good older lenses, which can be employed
> in useful fashion on your Super A's and on the *ist D (and DS).
>
> Fred
>
>
>
>
