damaged specimen. This was taken with a 40mm I think it's very sharp at f11, more than
merely acceptable.
http://pug.komkon.org/03may/dingie2.html
This one was taken with the 40mm at f2.8. (and I have no Idea how I held it steady enough),
http://pug.komkon.org/02jul/cvdbrdg.html
Don Sanderson wrote:
Recieved and played with two lenses on the D today. (After thawing them out, brrrr! Winter just got here!)
SMCT 135/2.5 Superb all the way, not bad even at 2.5. By 5.6 one of the sharpest I've seen with very "natural" OOF areas. Large and heavy but very smooth and easy to work with.
SMC Pentax M 40/2.8 (Never seen one in person, had to try it.) Good points: Tiny and light, the aperture and focus took some getting used to. Bad points: Everything else! This one has a bit of seperation in the second element in from the rear. It's just the edges so it SHOULD be OK at smaller apertures. It's not, the sharpness and contrast are very poor in my opinion. I've heard this called an average or mediocre lens. That to me is a bit of an over-rating, I got *acceptable* results at f:11, fair to good at 16-22. Was hoping for a good light lens for walking about. This ain't it, I'll take the A 50/2 anyday!
Had I tried the 40 first I may have rated it a little higher. But the 135 showed me how good a lens can be, the 40 didn't stand a chance!
Don
--
I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime.
--P.J. O'Rourke
