Originally posted by VaughnA It's not priced (in current prices) like the 35/2. Comparing plastic on a tiny motor with moving parts to a mount is a pointless exercise. They are being used in completely different situations. I don't recall any problems with the DAL-55-300 mounts so far. And it will put a LOT more stress on the mount than the 35 because of it's weight and lenght. And bottom line, it's about the IQ, I'll wait for that result, if it looks good, I'm jumping in line. I've got a friend with one of the 1.8 canons and he's not impressed with it. He's commented many times on how my 16-45 zoom seems much sharper than his prime, even at 5.6 or so. That's why any comparison without actually seeing the lens is pointless.
The point is, the SDM gears shouldn't have been crapping out on people given the pro-plastic argument here-in. The point you guys overlook with the DA L lenses is the lack of features. The plasti-mount is just the trademark/icon for that. For example, the DA L 55-300mm lacked quick shift and a hood. Relative to that, the price reduction wasn't that much, especially if one got the hood as an accessory which could actually end up costing overall as much as getting the DA 55-300mm to begin with. I'm not going to get into a budget prime versus a quality zoom. However, the DA 16-45mm lens isn't a DA L lens. The silver lining here is that Pentax took the optics from a good prime and put it into a budget barrel. I would rather they do that than come out with a plastic lens with plastic elements.