You quoted it, Chris ... ;-))
Chris Brogden wrote:
>
> 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.
> >
