> From: Andre Langevin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >After some delays, I finally got a Pentax M 150/3.5... > >If there is an obvious weakness it is that the minimum focus distance > >is 1.8 meters or thereabouts, which doesn't give much of a "macro". > > The Minolta 49mm achromatic close-up lens #0 will start at 2m (at > infinity) and bring you closer. Easier to use than a ring also.
Actually, I don't expect to be doing anything like macro work with it. I merely noted that it wasn't a good choice for macro, especially given the availibility of 100 and 200mm macro lenses. > >Contrast and sharpness in the test roll are not impressive, but the > >conditions of the test may be to blame. I will note that I had never run a scientific test on anything longer than 85mm, since I couldn't get far enough back from my original test target to frame it with a longer lens. It could be that everything longer than 85mm is a bit flat and mushy. > I fired my 150mm after finding the same. It was handheld shots at > 1/125. I may have been impulsive although I find the 150mm focal > length too long for my taste. Actually I fear that it will be too short. I'd have opted for M200/4 except that my girlfriend will be carrying that and it seems dumb to have two of them when the goal is to minimize communal gear. I'd take the A* 300/4 if I still had it. > >Overall, I'm pretty impressed. The SMC-T 150/4 has a very good > >reputation, and replaced an earlier S-T 150/4 that is supposedly weaker at > >wider apertures... > > ...but strong at minimum focusing distance (and with tubes) according > to vintage booklet. Hmm. What do you photograph with a 150 at minimum focus distance? It's a little too long for a portrait lens. Action shots would not likely be taken at 2 meters. > >So, now I have a minimal kit (KX, K30/2.8, M50/1.4, M150/3.5, 1.4xS) > >of gear I like and trust. > > Don't you find a gap at 85mm? I don't know yet--I haven't had any chance to really take this kit out and see if it covers all the bases. I'd think that if I NEEDED an 85 that M50 + 1.4xS would come close enough. Normally I'd carry 105 and 200 instead of 150, but I'm hoping the one lens will cover the other two well enough. My standard rig is 20/28/50/85or105/200. Realistically, this 3-lens rig is for touristy shots of England and I suspect that the 30 and 50 will get most of the use anyway. I always liked 85mm lenses, but recently I'm finding that 85 is too near 50 and a 105 is often a better choice for me. The main advantage of 85s from my point of view is that they are up to a stop faster than 105s. I normally use 85/105 for people shots, to get a certain working distance and level of isolation. For thing shots, I can just walk up closer. > >I'd still like to think that I can find a beat-up M20/4.0 for under $300 > >at some point when I actually have $300 to spend again. > > Indeed, beat-up (Ex-) M20 go for less than 300, when you find one. When indeed. I'll keep my eyes open. I had a couple of reasonable offers for M20s in good shape, but somehow $325 is just a bit more than a 20/4 is worth to me right now, especially with another subsystem of my Ford Escort beginning to act up. Good 20mm lenses in general are a bit hard to come by--I'd considered getting a 20mm screw-mount but the ones that I hear good things about do not appear to be readily availible. DJE
