From: "Peter J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >This I don't understand, the 24's are no more problematic than the >28's. The K 3.5 and 2.8 have excellent >reputations, the FA 2.0 also. The only one I've heard really bad things >about is the A 2.8 which has mixed >reviews, sample variations anyone?
I've heard some uncomplementary things about the FA 2.0 at wider apertures. I had a K 2.8 which did not impress me (not bad, but not impressive), and I have a Super Takumar (perhaps SMC, based on S/N) 3.5 which is likely the same as the K 3.5 and is weak towards the edges at "wider" apertures. It's not that they are worse than other manufacturer's 24s, but that 24s in general are not as good as 28s at wide (especially really wide) apertures and towards the edges. Of the half-dozen Pentax and Nikon 24s I've used, none of them could compare to a good 28. >The 135's are also given mostly high marks. The K 3.5 2.8 and A 1.8 >lenses are legendary, I owned an A 1.8. It's at least as good as the Nikkor 2.0 at wider apertures, but that's not saying much as the Nikkor is arguably Nikon's worst short tele prime. Again, the A 1.8 is not bad compared to similar lenses, but compared to a good 85 or 105 it's not as good, at least at wide stops where you actually want to use the thing. > The FA 2.8 and F 2.8 are >at least equal in optical quality to the K's the M 3.5 is a solid >performer if not quite up to the standards of the previous >lenses. I've not gotten my hands on the F/FA, but I hear good things about them. Perhaps it was an attempt by Pentax to make up for the A 2.8! I owned an M 3.5 which was solid, but not great (a fine performance for a basic, inexpensive lens). > Only the A 2.8 has a less than stellar reputation. >Which is >just what you'd expect from a class of lenses that >has had the amount of history and R&D that 135's have had lavished on >them over the years. OK, I was going back a bit. The Super Takumar and first model SMC Takumar 2.5s aren't great. The second model SMC Takumar is presumably equal to the K 2.5? In comparison, 105mm lenses were quite good a long way back. >The non SMC models of the 135's are another matter entirely, but they >were budget lenses. So are many 28-xx zooms. A dirt-cheap M 50/2.0 is still a very good lens. I didn't say that the 24s and 135s were BAD, but that they didn't attain the same consistant high caliber that almost all Pentax's primes in the 28-105mm range did. It's just harder to make longer or wider focal length lenses that perform as well as more moderate focal lengths. Look at resolution numbers and such and you will see a real drop-off outside the 28-105 range for all manufacturers. DJE
