You know, I would like to make the argument that no lens really "sucks." It's all about how you use it. There's certainly more to a lens then how sharp it is. In fact, when it comes to a portrait lens, I'm not sure sharpness should be the number one criteria. No one wants to count the pores on someone's nose. I have seen some exceptional shots from the Pentax 85mm soft lens. Which, by many of the standards being discussed here, is an absolutely "garbage" lens. It's made to be soft and it works beautifully. Other photographers add filters, jelly etc to make a lens perform badly. If sharpness is what's important, we would use nothing but macro lenses...
In a message dated 4/26/02 12:42:44 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: <<But why? What's so bad about it? What type of distortion or aberrations does it show? If you haven't shot with it yourself and observed the faults that others mention, then all you're doing is passing on received opinions in the guise of observed evidence. This is how rumours, fictional or otherwise, get passed on. If you've never shot with this lens and observed its flaws, then say something like "I've heard that..." so the questioner doesn't get the wrong idea. If you *have* shot with it, then a more detailed description of its faults than an "it sucks" post would be a good idea. Not trying to criticize, just point out some stuff. chris On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, Nitin Garg wrote: > The takumar bayonet lenses were cheap consumer grade k-mount lenses. > not worth $100 at all. There are better performing lenses available for > less. - 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 .
