Originally posted by Kayaker-J When this sort of friendly back-and-forth comes up, I always wonder about the sample to sample variations. And the fact that folks typically don't specify the camera they're using to arrive at these judgments. Roger C., at his pntrs.com/t/TUJGRktHSkJHRkpISUVCRkpOSkVN?url=lensrentals.com blogspot, has documented this issue clearly and repeatedly with respect to even highly regarded, fresh-from-the-factory contemporary glass. Since Roger buys lenses 20 at a time and is a very clever guy, with proper testing set-ups and protocols at his disposal , I have to regard his results as authoritative. I like the practical advantages of a film era 70-150mm MF zoom so much that I have nine examples of the Nikon-E f.3.5/Kiron f.4/Vivitar f.3.8 "first cousins" (with "matched multipliers") in N-AI and PK mounts to compare, including four of the Series-E. This is economical in the long run.
---------- Post added 03-01-14 at 11:18 AM ----------
I find it very, very hard indeed to call Jonathan Mac's comparison results at f.8 "virtually indistinguishable".
Well, Kayaker, I have had another look. I must be missing something. Sure the K landscape shot is a bit less exposed/darker than the the M one, giving an impression of greater contrast. Beyond that I find it tough to see any material difference. In the 'wide open' comparison of the rock, the foreground/corner flowers are sharper in the K version. Maybe it's the focus, maybe it is (as I said earlier) that the K is a bit better at the edges wide open. Having both lenses, I'm unbiased - but I can't see in that comparison the justification for the higher price, greater weight etc. of the K. (When I come to sell mine, it will be a different story
)
(Incidentally my own comparison is based, most recently, on use with a K5 and Lightroom.)