Hi, I have to somewhat disagree with your assessment of the K105/2.8 bokeh. I say somewhat because it's clear that the lens can produce such a mess, but the thing about the quality of bokeh depends on many factors such as subject to lens distance, background to lens distance, details or lack of details in the scene, contrast, lighting, enlargement size of the photo, and, of course, lens aperture, amongst other factors. True, some lenses excel at producing a soft, creamy bokeh, and others require some thought and care when using them in order to produce an acceptable result.
While the K105/2.8 isn't an M150/3.5, results from the two samples I've used have been far superior to the example you've shown us in the second URL. Recently I posted a photo of a mailbox taken with the K105/2.8. Even at the small size required for web viewing the bokeh was nowhere near as bad as that which you've shown us. http://home.earthlink.net/~my-pics/mailboxes/catbox.html However, when viewing an 11x14 or so sized print, or looking at the image in Photoshop @ 50% or larger (especially @ 100%) the bokeh appears to be quite pleasant and much softer than your example or that which is seen in the web-sized image. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Fred <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > If you want another great lens, get a SMC-K 2.8/105mm. It's even > > better! > > I'm afraid that I have to disagree with this, though, Jens. While > the lens is sharp, contrasty, and well built, I found its bokeh > (very important to me, but not to everybody, of course) to be very > harsh. See http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/k105f28/ (especially > http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/k105f28/105brs28.jpg ).
