> William Robb said: > I was quite surprised when I came onto this list and discovered that > some of my favourite lenses are considered to be crap. > I like the M28mm f/2.8, and I have the really bad one with the chrome > trim ring, not the less awful one. > Not that I like the 28mm focal length that much, but the few times I > have use the M28mm lens, the pictures were just fine, thank you. > Same with the M85mm f/2.
A LOT of this depends on the conditions of use. My testing shows both of these lenses to be sub-par and by my standards just adequate AT WIDE APERTURES. They are fine at middling apertures, although the Ks may still be better. For me, the superior wide-aperture and overall performance of K85 and K30 justify the extra cost and weight, because I spend a lot of time at wide apertures. If you don't normally shoot wide open, or shoot in a style that does not require great sharpness and contrast, the "limitations" of these M lenses are not an issue. It MAY also be in some cases that while lens X is "fine", once you have tried lens "Y" you realize that it IS better even though you never had any problems with lens X. I used an M28/2.8 for years without feeling dissatisfaction with it, but compared to the K30 I now have the M28 is simply not as good. Why not go with the better lens if you have the option (and the money)? > Denigrated by many, it has been a fine little lens for me. > The 40 mm lens I just don't get. There is nothing wrong with them. >From what I've heard it's simply that most 50s are better. If you are willing to give up some optical quality in return for smaller size and lighter weight, the 40 makes sense. I think there is also a sense that the 40 is overrated. I agree that they are overpriced. > I've owned two, sold one. Both were optically fine lenses with a > pleasing angle of view, though I don't think they are worth what they > go for on the used market. > If a lens is a bit soft at the corners, stop it down a bit. If it has > some barrel distortion, don't use it where that is going to be an > issue. Sometimes you don't have these options, and don't want to make the optical sacrifices. On the job, I have to have a bag of lenses that work well under all conditions and at all apertures. This means a bag of big, heavy, expensive lenses. Sometimes you can choose your working conditions, or are willing to sacrifice some optical quality for lower price or smaller size. Sometimes the difference in quality in insignificant for the use at hand. >From: Andre Langevin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >I have never tried the K even if I have one. But my M has seen quite >a bit of use, mostly on sunny days at f8. Everything looked fine but >I'd have to scan some slides at 2700 dpi and check the details in the >corners. No time right now... Any lens that doesn't look fine at f8 is either a dog or very highly optimized for performance at very large apertures. I don't see f8 much. This may be why I'm picky about optical quality--differences that are pretty much gone by f5.6 can be really noticeable at f2.8 or f/1.4. >Modern Photography test indicated high resolution at full aperture >but only in the center, and quickly all over the field, closing down. >I don't remember its contrast ratings but I think it was high at most >apertures. The lens suffers mainly from bad distorsion correction >(like the previous 20mm lenses) and quite a bit of vignetting, but I >don't remember until what F stop. When I find the data, I'll post it. Interesting about the vignetting. I've worked with very few lenses that display a lot of vignetting, although given its tiny size I'm not at all surprised that the M20 should have it. I'll have to drag out my tests of the other 20s I own and look at them again. DJE
