the biggest difference between the k85 and the m85 is the bokeh of the k
is much much better than the m.
the m has horrible busy bokeh.
On 7/22/2013 11:40 PM, P.J. Alling wrote:
The M 85 was designed as a portrait lens, maximum sharpness and
resolution isn't the highest priority in lens indented for that
useee. That said I find it more than sharp enough stopped down a bit
on film, and the center is a bit sharper, so it doesn't matter that
much on APS-C digital. When the light is low the fact that it's only
about as sharp wide open as a moderately good zoom is hardly a
handicap, and it's extreme small size, about the same size as a 55mm
f1.8 or 50mm f1.4 makes up for a lot. Sure you could have the K 85mm
f1.8 for only about a hundred two, dollars more, (and the smc Takumar
85mm f1.9 is considered a collectors item so you're going to pay a
premium for that as well), from KEH, when it's in stock but that lens
is twice the size of the M. The M is a little jewel but it's a
compromise like all other things in life.
On 7/22/2013 9:10 PM, Darren Addy wrote:
Read some reviews. The M85mm f2 is considered quite inferior optically
to ANY of the Pentax 85mm f1.8/1.9 offerings.
And that K 135mm f2.5 is a wee bit overpriced, IMHO. You can get the
same optical design and SMC coatings with the S-M-C Takumar version 2
for a fair amount less (although the K-mount is a convenience.
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 7:52 PM, Zos Xavius <[email protected]> wrote:
http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/photographic-equipment-sale/232213-sale-pentax-super-multi-coated-k-135mm-f-2-5-m-85mm-f-2-a.html
Only $300 or so. A steal comparatively. If I had $300, i would buy
this right now. In fact, I've been waiting for one to show up. Same
goes for the 85 f2 that is listed there. Dammit, why must the rarer
lenses on my wishlist only seemingly appear when I am broke?
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 8:35 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
Then we must look to you to answer your own question. (I'm interested
in the answer).
Darren, I'd sell it when they unwrap my cold dead fingers from
around it !
It one of the lenses I'll never sell as long as I'm on this side of
the
grass & I'm still shooting Pentax.
It was actually recommended to me by a Nikon pro when I was taking a
workshop from him and he saw I was shooting Pentax. When I did get
it and
went to another of his workshop he had to borrow and examine it as
he had
heard it was equal to or better than the Nikon 200 macro he was
using. Quite
a recommendation I'd say.
In my estimation I'd have to say its worth as much or more than the
A* 135
because of its unique function - macro with working distance.
Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller
----- Original Message ----- From: "Darren Addy"
<[email protected]>
To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 7:24 PM
Subject: Re: KEH has an A* 135mm f1.8
Kenneth Waller <[email protected]>
but can the 1.8 be that much better than a 2.8?
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 5:33 PM, Kenneth Waller
<[email protected]>
wrote:
Ah, but I can ask because I have one, bought around 15 years ago for
$800usd.
Then we must look to you to answer your own question. (I'm interested
in the answer).
: )
--
"Photography is a Bastard left by Science on the Doorstep of Art" -
Peter Galassi
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above
and follow the directions.
--
J.C. O'Connell
[email protected]
--
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
