Oh, that line. I didn't interpret that as just optically better, which is why I didn't immediately understand that you did. I took it to mean "better for the purpose." He was speaking specifically about a travel lens, and an 80-210 zoom can be better as an all-in-one travel lens for reasons other than the quality of the photos it produces. I didn't get the idea he was denigrating the M150's quality, just questioning whether it could adequately replace the flexibility of a zoom or the wider field of view of a 135mm lens.
chris On Tue, 2 Mar 2004, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > 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. > > > >
