A return to 35mm - finding my ideal camera(s)

flavio81 said:

Hi Les,

I realize i had you on the "Ignored" list for a long time. I don't know why, because you post some comparisons that are interesting, for example the picture you posted elsewhere comparing the size of pro 35mm film cameras. Thanks for those comparisons!

You're correct, "inferior" is a silly word. But also consider that a 50/4 lens doesn't really require too much size, so it's easy to make compact. For example the actual lens (actual optics) of the Canon FD 50/3.5 lens are tiny, all the bulkiness is just the helicoid.

Click to expand...

You ignoring me in this context doesn't affect my feelings or bottom line since we don't know each other and I gain no monetary compensation from any of this. I take a laissez faire position on these things . . . No harm no foul but thanks for the honesty.

As a test engineer - but not related to optics, I was hoping you had examples of your statement. Sounds like a broad generalization then . .

My point was the M series Pentax lens may in fact be "inferior" to the K, but my tests indicate that even if it were so, it would take more effort then it's worth to realize the difference.

Les Sarile said:

As a test engineer - but not related to optics, I was hoping you had examples of your statement. Sounds like a broad generalization then . .

My point was the M series Pentax lens may in fact be "inferior" to the K, but my tests indicate that even if it were so, it would take more effort then it's worth to realize the difference.

Click to expand...

On another forum specific to Pentax users, it's a widely held belief that K lenses are superior to M lense, for two reasons, one is various tests of K versus M lenses, for example this one:

http://www.takinami.com/yoshihiko/photo/lens_test/procedure.html

The other is subjective opinions. But plenty of them.

Les Sarile said:

it would take more effort then it's worth to realize the difference.

Click to expand...

Yes, point taken.