That makes sense. Most of the shots that I took with it in Mexico were at f 8 or 11. However I shot some of the rooms in Emperor Maximillian's castle (Chapultepec) at 5.6 on T-max 3200, and they look nice at 11 x 14. But they might very well have been noticeably sharper with the 35/2. Of course that doesn't mean they would be more pleasing photographs.
Isaac Crawford wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Dan Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 10:37 PM > Subject: Re: M lens testimonial > > > I've heard (read) over and over that the 40/2.8 is an overpriced mutt, but > > I've never seen any photos attributed to it that make me say "Ick". Anyone > > know how it got such a lousy reputation? > > IIRC the 40 is a "tessar" design and therefore not at its best until > stopped down a ways. I bet that if the 40 is shot around f8 or 11 it will > give acceptably sharp pictures. My guess is that some people spent too much > on it and then were disapointed with its performance at 2.8, hence the bad > rep. > > Isaac > > > > Dan Scott > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Paul wrote: > > > > >I got some nice shots with the > > >40/2.8 and was quite surprised by the quality of the resulting film. > > >It's probably not quite as sharp as the 35/2, but it's definitely not a > > >bow-wow. > - > 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 . - 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 .
