Originally posted by reh321 Why would you want a "K" lens instead of the comparable "M" lens, even if they went for the same price?
Cause it's better? Just a guess...
I have a number of very good 28mm's, including the mighty K 2/28mm Distagon/Hollywood, but I can tell you that the K f/3.5 matches any of the best vintage optics of the same focal length. I had the M versions (f/2. 8 and f/3.5), and while the latter is quite good, they are not in the same league. Unsurprisingly, FF mirrorless users who use adapted optics, choosing the best of the crop, often have in their arsenal the K f/3.5, together with the best Nikkor/Zuiko/Canon objectives.
Currently I'm halfway through this thread. It's a very, very interesting one. Kudos to the OP.
Reading the various posts I found that I agree on the choice of some dream lenses (like the Cosina/Voigtlander 125mm, for example), I'm happy I own some others (a few were on my wish list for long, like the Tamron Anniversary 2.5/180mm), but what I find the most interesting are some choices that have to do with brand loyalty (and, why not, status). I am the happy owner of an A 15mm, I think it's a beautiful lens, but it falls behind any modern extreme wide (like my Samyang 14mm, and I guess also the Laowa and Irix), and the same way I would treasure an FA* 24mm, but I'm sure it doesn't equal the performance of my Samyang 24mm, no aura, no AF, but probably better in any other department. Let's face it, some Pentax vintage lenses, especially extreme wides, albeit beautiful and very well made, show their age, and are not at the same level of modern designs. I love to use vintage optics, but I realized that I should concentrate on speed and smooth rendition, qualities that are often missing from modern optics (or come at a very high price).