I have one and didn't know it was a dud until I joined this list ;-) Seriously, though, one contributor even described the lens as "mediocre", despite the lens test sites associated with this list (Stan's, Yoshi's) finding that it, or the identical (but for coating formula) M35/2.8, was mostly an average performer that sometimes did better than well regarded lenses. It seemed that "average" and "mediocre" had at some time come to have the same meaning. Average in Pentax terms when this lens was new was quite good, they had not yet fully embraced the concept of "consumer quality".
I suspect that batch variation could be an issue. Perhaps some parts of the world got an entire bad shipment, so testing before you buy may be advisable. Also to consider is that SLRs are very intolerant to backfocus errors when wide angle lenses are used. Wide angle lenses may have deep depth of field (at the subject plane) but they have critically narrow depth of focus (at the film plane). I once thought that all my wides were crap until I checked the viewfinder registration of my cameras. They were all out of register but normal and long lens shots still looked sharp. Once that was fixed my wides all became top performers again. regards, Anthony Farr > -----Original Message----- > From: Don Sanderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > I've been looking for a decent A type 35mm to use as a normal lens on the D. > I understand the A35/2.8 is pretty soft wide open but does anyone know how > it > is otherwise? > I have a nice K 35/3.5 but want something to use in P or Av mode for every- > day quick "snaps". > > TIA > Don
