Hi, I own M35/2.8 and just wondered if K35/3.5 or 2.0 is much better to re-sell M version and think about any other K or FA 35mm. Now I am waiting what Pentax does with digital. maybe it would not pay to stick with him. KSMC 135/2.5 is really very nice performer. I bought it like new in Vienna one year ago for only 40$!!! I was very lucky. Cheers, Alek Użytkownik Andre Langevin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisał: >Alek, it's hard to compare 2 different lenses like the 35/3.5 and the 135/3.5. > >I have been very well served by the 135/2.5 (in black & white). And >also by the 35/3.5 for the few shots (maybe 20) I took with it. I >have not checked the negatives with a microscope and don't think I >will ever do it as I react to the photographs "globally": are they >interesting or not? > >There are a few factors that can make a photo look uninteresting (bad >timimg, bad composition, flare, etc.) and they are overwhelming >compared to qualities like definition, because all those lenses we >are talking about have a very good resolving power. The difference >between them is very small. > >35/3.5 has indeed a very high resolving power, it is a known fact, so >if you intend to do big enlargments, it might be better to have a bit >more definition (100 lines compared to 80). > >But it could be more important to try to fix other important >parameters like using best lens aperture (and a tripod) or fast >enough speed (if without a tripod), or using a hood (not necessary >with the 35/3.5). > >You can make a photo for the front page of a magazine with 35/3.5 but >also with the supposedly worse 28/2.8 (M or A). These two are still >very good lenses. > >If Salgado got his Leica gear robbed and used,for a few days (before >getting new gear), a locally found Spotmatic + 55/2, he would make as >nice photos and most people wouldn't notice a difference (unless they >knew about it -- a kind of placebo effect...). > >But I understand you would like to grab the best for your photo bag >and feel confident because of that. It's not a bad idea. > >So, do yourself a favor, buy the 35/3.5 and know you can use it at >any aperture and against the light source, and go for the pic, the >one your friends will remember. > >Kind regards, > >Andre > >>Is K35/3.5 better than your K135/2.5? I also own it and wonder. >>Alek >>Uz�ytkownik Andre Langevin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisa?: >>>>Andre wrote: >>>> >>>>> Having said that, K35/3.5 is in a special class. It is one of the >>>>> highest resolution lens ever made, and have no flare even with spot >>>>> lights in front of you. But rather big and slow. >>>> >>>> >>>>How is it wide open? >>>> >>>> >>>>Pl´l >>> >>>I used it twice during shows with spot lights in front of me, wide >>>open (with Tri-X at 1000) and still no flare and good contrast. I >>>don't think I have scanned at 2700 dpi any of the photos I did with >>>this lens in order to really check definition. (I took most photos >>>with a 85/1.8 and a 135/2.5). >>> >>>The ultimate test would be a slow slide scanned at 4000 dpi. Anyway, >>>it is probably one of the safest lens to use wide open. In the same >>>league as recent FA wide angles. >>> >>>Andre >>>-- >>> >>--------------r-e-k-l-a-m-a----------------- >> >>Masz dos´c´ p?acenia prowizji bankowi ? >>mBank - za?óz� konto >>http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbank > > >-- > --------------r-e-k-l-a-m-a-----------------
Święta tuż tuż! http://swieta.onet.pl
