[pathdoc]

I have already had a look here, but I thought it would be nice to put this out for discussion without resurrecting a very dead thread.

Comparing lengths, diameters and weights of Pentax A versus M lenses in the normal and wide prime range, where they are comparable (i.e. matching focal lengths and apertures) leads me to think that there's really not much between them. The major difference is the functionality bestowed by the A contacts. Now of course this is a big thing on DSLRs, because not only do you get to control the aperture through the camera, you also get it written into the EXIF.

However, on film it is a different matter. It is most particularly a different matter when, as in my case:

1) I am probably never going to print these any bigger than 6 x 4 inches for the family album, so IQ differences between types are probably not going to show, AND

2) Given the cameras I will be using, A vs M functionality is almost irrelevant.

With regards to #2, I have an ME, a P3, a P30T coming back from repair, and an MX on the way. Of these, probably the only one that would be affected by lack of the A setting is the P3 - the MX can't use A contact information at all, the ME doesn't need it (it's full-time Av by design), and the P30T has a selectable aperture priority mode at the fast end of the shutter speed dial (almost like a shrunken K2 with better viewfinder data presentation).

So for me, it seems like there's almost nothing in it. No doubt someone who had a Super Program or an AF film body, or was exclusively shooting DSLRs with old glass, and/or who liked making BIG prints, might have a very different opinion.

It all goes to show that one's particular taste in lenses can be either greatly curtailed OR greatly broadened when the intended use and nature of the platform on which they'll be used is taken into account.

Also, as a result of reading that other thread, I am now very tempted to get Daniel Cecchi's book...

Cecchi, Daniel. Ashai Pentax and Pentax SLR 35mm Cameras 1952-1989. Hove, Sussex: Hove Foto Books, 1990.

...because I have had BBA (Book Buying Addiction) since long before I ever had an SLR camera to call my own.

[boriscleto]

If you are going to be using film cameras there isn't a big difference. The M lenses won't work with a film SLR that has a crippled K-mount, but that is only a few ZX/MZ series.

The big differnce, and the reason for the price premium on A lenses, is with DSLRs. Exposure automation and P-TTL make a big difference to most people.

[dadipentak]

Another consideration might be the lens coatings. I have no idea about the timing/sequence of coating improvements (is that chronicled anywhere?) but it could make a difference.

And, btw, having just gone through a period of immersion in old family photos (including scanning, digital processing and printing enlargements), I'd caution against being too casual about IQ--your descendants will appreciate good photos.

[monochrome]

For a few of us there is an aesthetic preference for one or another series of lenses - in my case the original bayonet mount 'K' series - that overrides any ease-of-use considerations. I enjoy the taking of a photograph as much as (sometimes more than) developing and viewing the final product. There are also a few special full-manual lenses that overcome their disadvantages by producing stellar digital images in the right hands.

Generalizations can be dangerously general

[gofour3]

For a few of us there is an aesthetic preference for one or another series of lenses - in my case the original bayonet mount 'K' series - that overrides any ease-of-use considerations. I enjoy the taking of a photograph as much as (sometimes more than) developing and viewing the final product. There are also a few special full-manual lenses that overcome their disadvantages by producing stellar digital images in the right hands.

Generalizations can be dangerously general

Yep I was going to ask "why M and not K".

You saved me the effort!

Thanks, Phil.

[Ray-uk]

I don't think you will notice a great difference in image quality between M and A versions of the same lenses, what is noticeable is the difference in build quality and handling.
Many of the A lenses have plastic aperture setting rings which handle poorly especially as the lens ages and wear, dried up grease and contamination take their toll, M lenses suffer a lot less in this respect.

Of course if you want some of the best lenses then as already stated get the K versions, but be prepared to pay a higher price.

[pathdoc]

For a few of us there is an aesthetic preference for one or another series of lenses... ... right hands.

I agree. I did obliquely reference size, and should have expanded more on regarding this (or lack thereof) as a virtue (but stupidly omitted to do so), but it's why I limited my terms of reference to the A and M series.

I have never owned a K series lens, but I do have five Takumar primes (28, 35, 50, 55, 135mm) and I love and appreciate their aesthetics (except for my late model 55/2.0, which more resembles the SMC Pentaxes than its Takumar colleagues), handling (esp. focus) and image production.

Exposure automation and P-TTL make a big difference to most people.

For DSLR use, I agree completely; that's what I bought my FA primes for. For film use I have an AF200Sa flash, which only demands setting the aperture according to film speed. It's one critical step short of true TTL but it's close enough in practice, even on my ME.

I'd caution against being too casual about IQ--your descendants will appreciate good photos.

At the moment, on film, the lenses are better than the photographer.

Yep I was going to ask "why M and not K".

Compactness (ME and MX), but I forgot to go into that. *headdesk*

what is noticeable is the difference in build quality and handling.

So I have heard, and right now I think the only Pentax-A lens I have is the one that came with my heirloom P3. Even that spends a lot of time on the A setting, so that I can go over to full-auto for better flash handling.

Of course if you want some of the best lenses then as already stated get the K versions, but be prepared to pay a higher price.

I thought that was what Takumars were for.