Given the age of the lenses now and that we don't know how they have been handled or abused over the years, I would think quite a bit of variation is possible.

I've had some dreadful 50mm f/2 lenses, but the design itself is sound. Some users really do hammer their kit so the bad ones may well have had a rough ride.

There was a time when we used film and the parameters needed of a lens were well understood. Good lenses could deliver the quality to exploit the finest grain, sharpest emulsions. That was so for decades.

I feel a bit sorry for manufacturers now, because the requirements of advancing sensors need unprecedented quality levels that are constantly being revised upwards. I would suggest this is why the lower cost lenses don't survive as long these days. It's a tribute to the Limited range that even the film lenses are still at the top of the tree.

The new lenses promise to be something special and it will be very interesting to see how they behave on FF, APS-C and even on film for some of us. I think these are exciting times.

Sorry no, it was a poor day really. I will try locally tomorrow and make a point of doing this and get back to you.

Here's the link: http://www.ephotozine.com/user/johnriley1uk-22471/blog/first-look-at-the-hd-pent...

I tried Adblock Plus and it has ended up hanging on "waiting for adblock plus" rather than "waiting for googleads..." which seemed a bit pointless really.

I've decided it's back to waiting for the ads to load. Much of the time this is not a problem, there just seem to be rogue ads now and again.

I've done a blog over on EPZ now that I have actually managed to get out and shoot a few images.

In summary, it's a great lens, sharp, heavy, and the bokeh is sublime.

I've no doubt practice with it and better light will give better images yet, but so far it's very pleasing.

There is a certain irony in that.

Meanwhile, back at the cutting edge, the new full frame lenses are getting exciting and if the new FF frame camera is as good then we'll have nothing whatsoever to moan about.

IIRC CMOS sensors are intrinsically more noisy than CCD, but considerably cheaper to use. The change to CMOS was perhaps waiting for technology to improve so that the quality was right?

Small sensors still use CCD though, so perhaps that relates to the amplification circuits not being on-chip, so the chip assembly being more compact? I'm just musing, not knowing the answer.....

Now, now, no need to be rude about it.

As for the sensor, I suppose it's a rumour as things stand, but a lot of these rumours do seem to materialise, so the success rate is fairly good! As we have continually seen though, Pentax seems to be able to extract quality from Sony's sensors that other marques don't have the same success with. So the processing in camera (including the minimal processing needed for the RAW output) may make all the difference.

In terms of pixels, I guess it equates to the 24MP of the K-3. The bigger sensor needs more pixels if they keep the same pixel density - there's more space to fill.

Excellent observation and graphic design shots! How about black and white versions?