Equivalent field of view doesn't make lenses the same - the perspective exaggeration (difference in apparent distance between foreground and background) and DOF will relate to the focal length.

Because you're looking at the middle bit of a 14mm image not the full frame of a 20mm image.

I would have thought these differences in the case of comparing a 14mm versus an 18 or 20 would be significant. I have an APS-C so the comparison I would make would be between the short and long ends of my Sigma 8-16. The differences are about far more than just field of view.

Ref the original post, I thought I'd check just for the hell of it, and yes the manual focal length setting of my K3ii does indeed go up to 2000mm.

These chaps take backward-compatibility seriously!

Well your wallet would be lightened considerably, to compensate.

Anyone ever even been in the same room as one of these? What are they like?

It's a big 'un

Thanks yes I thought so - means that anyone interested in this design and the quality of results (I love my K 55/2) could choose between M42 OR K 55 1.8 OR 2 and effectively get the same lens. Which is a good 'un.

@John - can you comment as to whether my supposition is correct, that K = M42 Tak with a changed mount?

@Lennybloke that is completely true. Same lens.

I posted a comment over against that review suggesting that the original 'K' 55's were straight carries-over of the screw mounts. Is that not the case? In which case the K 55/1.8 and K 55/2 would be good choices as they bolt on without adapters.

Certainly the six-element layout seems identical. Is there a difference between the Tak and the early K's?

Told I can't PM you as not on site long enough. Can you PM with an email address?

Someone needs to snap it up at that price. I've got one and it's superb.