The M150/3.5 ... some here are not satisfied with it, others (Wheatfield Willie?) and myself think it's pretty darned good. I like mine quite a bit (although, unlike you, I don't test my lenses against one another and I don't look for ultimate sharpness, as you appear to). However, those that know me know I'm pretty fussy, and the M150 is a sweet optic. The bokeh is very nice, too. As is the size and the handling. As is the fact that it takes 49mm filters. I consider it an underrated jewel.
What boggles my mind is that you've neither used nor tested the M150, yet you denigrate it. Not a very scientific approach, eh. Try it ... you might be surprised. My only complaint about the lens is the damn retractable lens hood. It gets in the way when using a pol filter, it sometimes slides about, and I prefer deeper hoods anyway. The metal hood for the Tak 105/2.8 or the Tak 135/3.5 are great alternatives. shel the unscientific non lens tester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On a related note, I understand that M150/3.5 and M100/2.8 are generally > held to be inferior to K150/4.0 and K105/2.8 (both screw-mount designs, > from what I can tell). Unfortunately, the M lenses are cheapish and easy > to come by, and the K lenses aren't. I'm particularly curious about the > M150/3.5 as an alternative to hauling an M80-210/4.5 or K135/2.5 (better, > but bigger) to England next year.
