Shel: > Some people - perhaps repeating what they've heard elsewhere > - contend that the M85/2.0 is a poor quality lens.. Not that > many people have actually owned one, and speak only from > ignorance.
I also think that the M 85/2 has been unfairly maligned. It has previously been suggested by someone that there might be significant sample-to-sample variations that might account for some of the conflicting opinions. I also have to admit to some prejudice against the M 85/2, before owning one (two, actually, for a time). In an old thread here on the PDML I once said: "I do have to note, though, that Pentax devoted the fewest number of aperture blades to the M 85 (i.e., 6, compared to 8 with the K, and 9 with the A* and FA*), the fewest number of lens elements (i.e., 5, compared to 6 with the K, 7 with the A*, and 8 with the FA*), and the fewest number of lens groups (i.e., 4, compared to 6 with the K and A*, and 7 with the FA*). Judging from numbers alone (which, admittedly, is not the only way to judge a lens, of course), it just might be euphemistically inferred that Pentax did not bring the full force of its design department to bear on this particular lens model." Despite my preconceptions, I also found and reported: "I found that, despite its small size, despite its relatively simple optical design, despite some of the complaints about it historically here on the PDML, and despite my own preconceptions, the M 85/2 is actually a pretty good little performer. It was clearly not in the same league as the A* 85/1.4 for overall sharpness. It did not have as good a bokeh as the A* or FA* 85/1.4's. However, [HERESY ALERT !!!] it was not altogether different from the K 85/1.8 (no, not as good, but not horribly worse, either). The M 85/2 turned out to be "the sleeper" in my tests. Furthermore, both M 85/2's seemed to be as identical as I could judge them to be." > Good fortune has shined its light upon me, and I have > several Pentax 85mm lenses - the SMCT 85/1.8, the K85/1.8, > the A*85/1.4, and the lowly M85/2.0. While the 85/2.0 > doesn't reach to the same optical heights as the A*85/1.4, > it is far from a bowser, and, because of some softness at > wider apertures makes an excellent portrait lens. At smaller > apertures it's a fine lens, certainly superior to many > highly regarded zooms that list members fawn all over, at > certainly the equal to many primes. It has a nice bokeh and > soft-ish contrast, welcome characteristics for many > photographs. Agreed. > It's also much smaller and lighter than the other 85mm > lenses mentioned in this thread, which makes it a lot easier > to handle and carry, and more unobtrusive to use. It's > nowhere near as intimidating as the A*85/1.4 or its > autofocus younger sibling. It's not an optical giant, but an > overlooked, quiet, unassuming, hard worker, capable of > producing some very nice photographs. There's a particular > former editor of a national photo magazine who was, and may > still be, very interested in acquiring this lens. And while > I prefer the K85/1.8 as my 85mm lens of choice, there's > always a place for the giant A*85/1.4 and the capable > M85/2.0. Don't underestimate this optic. Good points, Shel. Fred - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
