It sounds like my A 50/2.0 is at best a bad sample, and more likely defective or damaged. There is no sign of damage on the body, and the glass looks great. Maybe a previous owner opened it up and put it back together wrong. My ignorant, wild guess is that maybe it just doesn't focus right, and the gradual improvement I see up to f8 is really just depth of field?
FWIW, my test shots were on a tripod, using the self-timer. No mirror lockup, though, as I don't yet have a body that will do that. "Unusable" was a poor choice of word on my part. "Unacceptable for my purposes" would have been better, my purposes being mostly family snapshots and landscapes. I love to see lots of sharp detail in both. Other purposes = other requirements. Maybe I should try to sell my soft A 50/2.0 for lots of money as a specially customized soft portrait lens. ;-) Greg > Hi, Boris, > > I have one, and use it often. It's the only 50mm prime k-mount that I > have, > and I tend to throw it in my pocket when I'm walking around with a slow > zoom > on a body, just in case I need it for lower light shots. > > It's fine stopped down: > > http://pug.komkon.org/03mar/filter.html > > I know that Greg didn't like his opened up. I think the word he used was > "unusable" or something like that. My experience has been quite the > opposite, especially since I use it wide open quite often: > > http://urbancaravan.com/latte2.jpg > > I've had that one blown up to 11x14, and the lip of the glass is still > quite > sharp. And, that shot's not cropped at all, so the relatively sharp part > of > the lip on the right hand side is right at the edge of the neg. That one > was taken at f2.0, with the lens set to minimum focusing distance; I just > moved the body back and forth until I got the focus I wanted. > > I have another one taken at 2.0 that I think is quite acceptable (well, I > have many, but most are only contacts, and you can't tell sharpness from > those), but I don't want to post it now, as it's my next month's PUG > entry. > Maybe I'll send it to you off list, Boris - send it to others at risk of > your personal safety! <vbg> > > Now, maybe Greg and I have widely divergent standards (very possible), but > I > wonder if maybe he had a bad sample? "Unusable" wide open just doesn't > come > close to my experience. > > These lenses are a dime a dozen. Normally go for $20US or less on eBay. > As > someone already said, it's because there are so many of them out there, > and, > likely, because who wants a prime these days, right? <g> I got mine for > $20US - with an MV attached as a rear lens cap! The MV is dead now, but I > only wanted the package for the lens to put on my MX, so I'm happy! > > Mechanically, these are nice lenses, with a positive feel to the focus and > aperture rings. Not as buttery smooth as my m42 Taks, but what is? <g> > > I'd say that if you have a chance to pick one up at the "going" price, you > can't go wrong. Can't hurt to have a good performing cheap lens, can it? > > cheers, > frank > > "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The > pessimist > fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer > > > > >>From: "Boris Liberman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>To: "PDML" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Subject: Questions: M 50/2.0 - any good? >>Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 13:45:24 +0300 >> >>Hi! >> >>I am about to be enabled with the above lens (SMC M 50/2.0). It is >>optically identical to A 50/2.0 and very similar (AFAICT) to 50/1.7. I >>wonder how come Stan's site has nothing to say about it and except one >> line >>on Alex's site I couldn't find anything in regular PDML annals <g>... >> >>Especially of course I would be interested in opinions of people who have >>(had) and/or use (used) this lens. >> >>Thanks in advance. >> >>Boris >> > > _________________________________________________________________ > Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* > http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcomm&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca > >
