First of all, Marcus, lighten up <g> The truth is resolution tests are almost worthless in the real world. The only thing that counts is what the negative looks like, and what quality print can be gotten from it. Further, I suspect that many people who bad-mouth this lens have never actually owned one and used it to any degree in order to fully know its characteristics. I've got one, and a K85/1.8 and an A*85/1.4. They all have their own character. And for some things the sharper A*85 is less desireable.
If your only criteria are sharpness at wide apertures and resolution, then this lens is the bottom of the Pentax 85mm barrel ... but that doesn't make it a dog. If you ran a Corvette, a Ferrari, and a Lamborghini around a race track, one would come in last, yet I doubt you'd call any of the cars a dog. One may accelerate better, another have better braking ability, and a third better handling in the corners. Which characteristic is most important to you? Think of a photograph in more subtle terms - think of the effects you may want from a scenic, or a portrait, or when shooting on the street. Sometimes a nice, soft approach is better, sometimes an image without biting clarity can make a stronger statement. Perhaps the bokeh is important in conveying the feeling you want. IOW, use the characteristics of a lens like an artist uses his brushes - sometimes broad, soft strokes are needed, other times delicate, fine, detailed work is called for. Neither can be replaced by the other. The M85/2.0 is not bitingly sharp, but it has a pleasant bokeh, and a gentleness about it that's often quite desireable, and which can make a photograph more than just a picture. No, the M85/2.0 is not a dog. It's one of many damned fine "brushes" for your silver-halide canvas. All you have to do is learn to use it where its qualities are most suitable. Marcus wrote: > > I have seen this lens over and over singled out as the > one not to buy or the one that was quickly sold, both > in the PUG archive and in Photo.net. I have also read > many lackluster defenses of this lens most of which > read: Not as bad as...;Good run for the money...;good > for glamour portraits not for contrasty reportage > type... > > Yoshihiko Takinami's lens resolution test disfavor > this lens when compared to other short tele's as well. > smc PENTAX-M 85mm f/2 (M85/2, #8055***) > > f/2 > 28 > 28/28 > 31/28 > 24/24 > 39/35 > > f/11 > 78 > 69/69 > 69/69 > 69/69 > 62/62 > > As for you staying home to clean out the litter box. > Your choice. But I never said that there was anything > wrong with this lens. I only stated the general > attitude I have observed and simply asked for peoples > thoughts on this. -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/ You can't have everything. Where would you put it? - 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 .
