come up to his standards. It's not that other peoples standards are low...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I decided that I was going to get an M 75-150, as it looks like a useful
lens and the going price is below my "toy" threshold. For something like $50, I can take the risk that it is mediocre.
I decided to check with stan halpin's site to make sure it wasn't unanimously rated a dog. 5 out of 6 comments there suggest that it has good sharpness and contrast and is an excellent lens. And then there's Shel, who is not at all positive about it, claiming it is "soft" and "big and bulky".
From what I can see of Shel's tastes, I can discount the "big and bulky"for my uses--he seems to like SMALL. I can't believe any lens with a 49mm filter is big and bulky, compared to the Nikkor behemoths I lug around on the job. OTOH I have found myself normally in agreement with Shel's assessment of the optical performance of lenses.
So, what's going on here? Did Shel get a bad sample? Do the other five guys just have very low standards? Is the lens worse than most primes (which Shel seems to like) but better than most zooms? I wouldn't expect it to be equal to the M 150/3.5, for example, but given that Pentax made an 85, 100, 135, and 150 in the M series you'd think there was SOME reason
for the zoom.
Anybody want to explain Shel, or the M 75-150, or the social dynamics of
some very divergent comments in Stan's collection of lens evaluations?
As I said, I'm getting the lens anyway, but I'm curious why the 5th dentist does not recommend sugarless gum...
DJE
