i currently own three lenses from the M "series," which are the M 200mm, M 85mm F/2, and M 50mm F/1.7. Im not huge fan of the M 200mm but I adore the M 85mm and M 50mm more than any of my other lenses. I constantly hear on the forum how people prefer K lenses instead of M lenses and I want to know why.
I've been spying the K club but to be honest I've yet to see half the quality of shots posted in the M club. In fact Im having trouble finding just one picture that really makes me want to buy a certain K lens or replace one of my M lenses.
Soooo.... why K? Size difference between comparable lenses from each camp (think M 28mm F/2 vs. K 28mm F/2
) can be drastic meaning the M has the advantage (IMO at least). I can't see how build could be any better as My 85mm and 50mm are my little tanks
Optics wise like I said, im just not seeing how they are better. Does anyone have examples? Should I ditch my M 85mm for the K 85mm F/1.X because of noticeable improvement in X factor? What about one of the most underrated lenses in pentax mount, the M 50mm F/1.7? Before some people here decided they were going to try to cheat people out of money and sell them for around $100 they went for $30 +/- consistently. Its my go to lens period. Is the equivalent K 55mm F/1.X better? In what regard? It seems K lenses go for consistently more than their M siblings... there has to be a reason.... right?
Finally for all you K owners, what lens more than any other should I be looking for to get into the K cult ?
One that will show me the light so to speak and lead me on a long and expensive journey to "catch them all?"
Thanks,
Tanner