Commenting only on lenses I have owned.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Firstly, there is the M28/3.5. I have NO legitimate need for this thing, already owning K30, M28/2, and M28/2.8. It has the simplest optical construction of any pentax 28 prior to the FA AL (which can presumably get by with 5 elements because of the aspheric). Given that it isnt' the same construction as K or SMCT 28/3.5 and was presumably in competition with the M28/2.8 I'd suspect strongly that M28/3.5 was designed to be a cheap alternative to the 2.8 and 2.0 lenses. Why then is it relatively rare and
relatively expensive? Can it be as good as the older 28/3.5s due to a newer optical formulation? It certainly could be as good as the M28/2.8 which is mediocre.
The M28/3.5 is smaller than the others, and it is rather good. I found it better than the 2.8 at all apertures. It was just one of those designs that worked real well.
Secondly, there is the M100/2.8. Everything I've heard about this lens suggests that it isn't great, and that K105 is a lot better. Yet M100s are
fairly hard to come by, and sell for a lot more than makes sense to me.
If I'm not mistaken KEH had one listed for a few HOURS earlier this week
before it disappeared, whereas some juicy A lenses are still in their inventory. Is M100 a better lens than I think somehow, or is it that M85
has a bad reputation (rightly or wrongly) and K105 is nearly impossible to come by, leaving M100 sought after as the best alternative? Perhaps it's favored for small size or good portrait characteristics (which would be very Pentax--replace the very sharp K105 with a smaller "portrait" lens).
To me the one advantage the M100/2.8 has over the M85/2 is its close focus is the same. That allows tighter head shots. From what I have heard the 105 was a bit better wide open. I currently have the M100/2.8 and am very happy with it. At one time used ones were rather cheap, then they went up a bunch, and they have not dropped as much as most of the other M series lenses in the past few years. They are not real common either.
The rep of the M85 is far worse than the lens. I believe it was deliberately designed to to be slightly soft (some uncorrected comma) wide open because it was considered a portrait lens. From f/5.6 mine was very sharp. Interestingly enough the M35/2 and M85/2 sold for exactly the same price new (I bought the ones I had new at the same time, so I know this for a fact), used the M85/2 is 2/3rds the price of the M35/2.
One of the strange things I have noticed is that some how the idea that the K lenses were a bit better than the M lenses, has somehow become they are a lot better. Exaggeration by people who go by what they read somewhere rather than their own experience I figure.
Usually if a used lens is not great, I figure there is something wrong with that particular lens. I think a lot of people over generalize.
-- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
