The 100/2.8M lens isn't the 85/1.8K but isn't the 85/2M either. It's a sharp enough lens that you won't notice and it's joyfully small too! Regards, Bob S.
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 13:55:20 -0500, Graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't know where those numbers come from, but it is definately a > "professionally acceptable" lens. In fact it is one of my favorites. When I > can > only carry two lenses, they are it (M100/2.8) and the M35mm/2.0. > > "Professionally acceptable" is the only lens rating that makes much sense to > me. > What that means is no client is going to be unsatisfied by the images made > with > it. Who cares about lpmm and all that but the pretentious who do not > understand > what they mean anyway. "Lpmm" may sell magazines but they don't sell lenses, > at > least not to me. > > graywolf > http://www.graywolfphoto.com > "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" > ----------------------------------- > > Keith Whaley wrote: > > > > > > Paul Stenquist wrote: > > > >> It's not exactly a steal. I sold the same lens recently. I think it > >> brought about $130. While I like the M 100/2.8, it's probably the > >> least desirable of the Pentax primes in the 100 to 120 range. > >> Paul > > > > > > I tend to agree... > > Somewhere I read that the "critical aperture" is f/16.0! > > And at that, it only resolves 51-57 l/mm. > > Hardly a world beater! > > > > keith whaley > > > >> On Jan 23, 2005, at 8:02 AM, Collin R Brendemuehl wrote: > >> > >>> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=3865834365&ssPageName=STRK:MEWA:IT > >>> > > > > > > > > > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.7.2 - Release Date: 1/21/2005 > >
