Hi Cotty ... I've several Pentax 35mm lenses: S-M-C 2.0; S-M-C 3.5; K 3.5; K 2.0; and the M 2.8
The M 2.8 is my least favorite, with the 3.5 versions being the favorites. Compared to the S-M-C and the K lenses, the M 2.8 seems a little "soft" - and that's the only way I can describe it. I find that fine detail is rendered better with the K 3.5 than with the M 2.8, even stopped down. The K 2.0 is a jewel as well, especially if you want the speed, but it's a little big for my taste, being the size of some short tele lenses. However, if you want the speed in that focal length, it's a good choice. Stopped down a bit it appears to be a fine performer, although the 3.5 seem somewhat better wrt fine detail and contrast. But, if you're not making large, wet darkroom prints, and are sticking primarily to digital printing, or are keeping the size of your wet prints to 5x7 or below, the M 2.8 should be acceptable. IMO, it's hard to beat the K35/3.5 when it comes to manual focus 35mm lenses. Cotty wrote: > > I just plopped down 40 UK quid to a man I've never met for a 35mm f/2.8 - > having done zero research first. Not my usual style, but needs must. A > present for the S.O. as she expressed a great interest in David Mann's > 35mm f/3.5 and with all the chat recently about how their owners are > optically retentive ;-) I thought I'd look out for a 2.8. I saw an f/2 go > on eBay the other day for sixty-something pounds, so I figure 40 is okay > for the 2.8?? Don't tell me it's a dog, please! --- Sheldon Belinkoff CREATURE'S COMFORT mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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 .
