Re: those 150s
Hi, I do not know whether it has been mentioned before, but in one of those Pentax lens booklets from the 70s, Pentax claims that the K150/f4 was one of the best medium telephotos on the market. Arnold
Re: those 150s
Hi, I do not know whether it has been mentioned before, but in one of those Pentax lens booklets from the 70s, Pentax claims that the K150/f4 was one of the best medium telephotos on the market. Arnold In an older Asahi booklet, the Super-Takumar 150mm, probably version 1, was described as being very good for close-ups (with tubes). That was before the 100/4 bellows came out, so it made sense, then, to have such a lens. Some medium tele lenses were available for that purpose from a few makers (Minolta, Novoflex and others). In a book on macros, the Tokina 200/3.5 was also said to be a good performer at close-up distances. Andre
Re: those 150s
so you got an exemplar that was produced on monday-morning ... mine was fine, too Best Bernd original message-- From: Shel Belinkoff a.. Subject: Re: those 150s b.. Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 07:29:29 -0800 I'd disagree ... terrible distortion and the long and short ends, soft at the extremes as well. It's really more like a 90mm ~ 135mm or so, as far as I'm concerned. Frantisek Vlcek wrote: Hi! I think a nice alternative to the 150/3.5 or the longer 85-205 zooms is the M 75-150/4. I had this lens, used it extensively, and it's an excellent performer even wide open, as good as primes. And it's small. Only drawback is the push-pull zoom, which is worse for tripod use when it can slip. Frantisek
Re: those 150s
I'd disagree ... terrible distortion and the long and short ends, soft at the extremes as well. It's really more like a 90mm ~ 135mm or so, as far as I'm concerned. Frantisek Vlcek wrote: Hi! I think a nice alternative to the 150/3.5 or the longer 85-205 zooms is the M 75-150/4. I had this lens, used it extensively, and it's an excellent performer even wide open, as good as primes. And it's small. Only drawback is the push-pull zoom, which is worse for tripod use when it can slip. Frantisek
Re: those 150s
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't look for ultimate sharpness, as you appear to). Only relative sharpness. I can't afford Leicas! Don't kid yourself ... Leica lenses are not always all they're reputed to be What boggles my mind is that you've neither used nor tested the M150, yet you denigrate it. Not a very scientific approach, eh. Try it ... you might be surprised. I think what I said was essentially that OTHERS had denigrated it, or more precisely that others had said that the K150/4 was BETTER. If I'd KNOWN the quality of the M150, or I'd had $115 burning a hole in my pocket, I wouldn't have bothered to ask. Actually, you said: I'm particularly curious about the M150/3.5 as an alternative to hauling an M80-210/4.5 or K135/2.5 (better, but bigger) to England next year. Are you saying that what you wrote isn't what you meant? I can understand that ... ;-)) I prefer deeper hoods anyway. The metal hood for the Tak 105/2.8 or the Tak 135/3.5 are great alternatives. That's what I was gonna put on it! On the value of deep, fixed lens hoods at least I agree with you totally. BTW, have you posted any pics to the pug or to the list? Don't recall having seen any. shel
Re: those 150s
I will also admit to distrusting the M lenses categorically due to their smaller size, even with plenty of examples that bigger does not necessarily imply better optical performance. It seems to me that what Pentax and some other manufacturers have tried to do in the 70s (following Olympus) was to make smaller and lighter lenses that are AT LEAST ALMOST AS GOOD as their bigger couterparts. I compared the big Takumar 200/3.5 with the M 200/4, taking the same photo and checking details in 2700 dpi scans and they showed the same resolution and practically the same contrast (maybe a dash better in the M lens). In that case, Pentax has not significantly improved the optical quality of these 200mm lenses between the 1960 and 1980 designs, they have improved their portability. (The missing link here is the 200/4. I only know that Modern Photography in feb 77 gave the K lens very low corner contrast at all apertures.) I found size an important factor for normal and moderate WA lenses when you need ease of use, as in stage photography. The smaller M focussing rings are a pain to use when you have to work fast. But for landscape photography, for example in the mountain, when you have all your time after putting that heavy pack-sack besides you, it's another matter : smaller lenses are good for your knees! Andre
