No, I said it's soft at the extremes of the focal range. From about 90mm > 125mm or so, maybe 135mm, it's pretty good. Big and bulky is relative. Most people here use bigger lenses, huge friggin' zooms and such. I like small glass, primes as you observed are my greatest pleasure. Still, compared to many of the lenses I prefer, the 75~150 is huge. I don't care for the balance it affords on the M-series cameras, although it's better with a winder, and it's better on the LX as well.
And, after all my complaining about the lens, and after so many people told me how good it is, I thought it best to retest it. So, I mounted the sukka on a tripod, ran through a couple of rolls of film, running through about five focal lengths, various apertures, and came up with a new conclusion. The damned lens has unacceptable barrel and pincushion distortion at the extremes. many of the people who swore it was a great lens said, yeah, that's true, but it is a zoom, yada-yadda-yadda. It still sucks for many types of photographs, especially if you have a critical eye. Now, let's talk about that ol' debil sharpness. With comparable K focal lengths - 85/1.8, 105/2.8, 120/2.8 135/2.5, and the M150/3.5 - the 75~150 runs a distant second. Can you live with it? Yo no se, amigo. I can in very specific circumstances, and that's why I've not dumped it. It makes a pretty good portrait lens. The zoom allows pretty precise framing, the lack of sharpness is not a detriment in many cases. And with the lens on a tripod, the issue of balance disappears. The built in hood is somewhat of an annoyance, as are most (OK, many) such hoods. If you want to use it, then a rubber band wrapped around the lens body behind the hood is a good idea. And not to single out this oft vaunted optic, even my mucho expensive Leica glass with a built in hood requires a rubber band fix, So, I eschew the hood, preferring to use the one from the Takumar 105/2.8 or the Takumar 135/3.5. If you're going to be using a pol filter it won't take you but a NY minute to figure out the advantage. Also, the hood's not very deep at all, in fact, it's downright shallow, more so when using a filter. So, consider this: lots of people are using "consumer" grade glass, consumer zooms, and with that in mind, maybe the 75~150 looks pretty good. Compared to higher quality lenses it pales in comparison. And please don't call me to task for disparaging those who use less expensive or lower quality glass. I'm just comparing lenses and optical qualities. So, get the 75~150 zoom, use it happily, just don't come kvetching when you decide to make a large print and you wished that you used a nice K-mount prime instead. Don't complain when you've taken a photo of a nice building on that once in a lifetime vacation to difficult and expensive port of call, and the slides suck because of the distortion. But for $50.00 why not grab it. make up your own mind. You'll get what you paid for <LOL> Oh, sugarless gum has some ingredients that may not be very good for you ;-)) Shel > [Original Message] > From: Peter J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 6/25/2004 8:03:07 PM > Subject: Re: M 75-150 and social theory > > Shel is our resident curmudgeon. He is extremely picky about his > equipment and it damned well better > come up to his standards. It's not that other peoples standards are low... > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >I decided that I was going to get an M 75-150, as it looks like a useful > >lens and the going price is below my "toy" threshold. For something like > >$50, I can take the risk that it is mediocre. > > > >I decided to check with stan halpin's site to make sure it wasn't > >unanimously rated a dog. 5 out of 6 comments there suggest that it has > >good sharpness and contrast and is an excellent lens. And then there's > >Shel, who is not at all positive about it, claiming it is "soft" and "big > >and bulky". > > > >>From what I can see of Shel's tastes, I can discount the "big and bulky" > >for my uses--he seems to like SMALL. I can't believe any lens with > >a 49mm filter is big and bulky, compared to the Nikkor behemoths I lug > >around on the job. OTOH I have found myself normally in > >agreement with Shel's assessment of the optical performance of lenses. > >So, what's going on here? Did Shel get a bad sample? Do the other five > >guys just have very low standards? Is the lens worse than most primes > >(which Shel seems to like) but better than most zooms? I wouldn't expect > >it to be equal to the M 150/3.5, for example, but given that Pentax made > >an 85, 100, 135, and 150 in the M series you'd think there was SOME reason > >for the zoom. > > > >Anybody want to explain Shel, or the M 75-150, or the social dynamics of > >some very divergent comments in Stan's collection of lens evaluations? > >As I said, I'm getting the lens anyway, but I'm curious why the 5th > >dentist does not recommend sugarless gum...
