I'm very fond of the M35/2.0. It's frequently my choice as a walkaround lens. It's quite sharp, even wide open. I don't know if the LX gallery is still up, but my shot of the homeless guy in Santa Monica was with the 35/2, wide open or maybe just a stop down. Here's another 35/2 shot, although it's at f11: http://www.portfolios.com/zoom.wga?User_number=stenquist&imagecount=19
T Rittenhouse wrote: > What a question. How was it? I don't know. > > No one said the 16x24 full frame b&w prints on the wall in my living room > back then weren't sharp, but then unlike people on the list no one put their > nose up against them to see if they were "really" sharp. > > I liked the M35.2.0. On the MX it was perfect for my type of shooting, hand > held PJ style stuff mostly. I am not the fanatic that many on the list seem > to be, if I needed better quality I used a Rollei, or a Super Technika both > of which got scared if they weren't on a tripod. > > Ciao, > Graywolf > http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Aaron Reynolds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 2:20 PM > Subject: Re: Re[2]: OT: Oh, I get it... > > > On Monday, March 11, 2002, at 12:37 PM, T Rittenhouse wrote: > > > > > M 35/2.0? Yep! Was my most used lens back in the old days. > > > > How was 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 . - 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 .
