I concur... I had a SMC-M 28mm f/2.8 (Type I) and did not feel it performed very well. Sold it and bought a SMC-M 28mm f/3.5. This lens performed better but I felt it was too slow. I sold it and bought a SMC-K 30mm f2.8. Great performance and adequate speed. Now I am happy.
Jose R. Rodriguez -----Original Message----- From: Peter Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 2:20 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Advisor Needs Advice-- The meaning of life. SCMP 30mm f2.8. At 06:50 PM 2/23/2003 -0600, you wrote: > > You might want to look for the SMCP-M 50mm f/3.5 Mike. > > I have one of these and it's a dynamite lens. *Very* sharp, almost > > immune to flare and it's smaller than the 28/2.8. > > >Huh? I already have the 50/1.4, Mark, which is small enough (I didn't even >know they made a 50/3.5). The point here is that I want to get something >complementary in the 28mm range. > > >All in all, however, despite Annsan's initial positive comment, I have to >say that the consensus, on-list and off, is surprisingly negative about the >28/2.8 SMCP-M. The first and second versions have very different optical >designs, so I suppose that could partly explain it, but (again excepting >Annsan's) I'm not hearing positive comments to go along with the negatives. > >Guess I'll pass. > >Oh, and incidentally, the SMCP-M 28mm f/3.5 (180g) is NOT smaller and >lighter than the SMCP-M 28mm f/2.8 (156g type 1; 170g type 2). The less >common type 2 2.8 is longer, but not heavier. > >--Mike Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
