I didn't see that part of his message, so I have no idea. chris
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > He said that one lens (some zoom) was better than the M150 > ... period. No equivocation, no qualifier ... the comment > was further down from the part of the message you quoted. > Maybe I'm putting to fine a point on it ... but that's where > my comment came from. > > shel > > Chris Brogden wrote: > > > > On Mon, 1 Mar 2004, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > I didn't get that from his message at all. He just mentioned that other > > people generally hold those M-series lenses to be inferior to their > > K-series equivalents (which most people seem to do), and he was wondering > > if that was valid or not. > > > > chris > > > > > [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. >
