[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
