The M 35 f2.8 is renowned for having sluggish aperature blades. I took mine in to get it fixed, at a cost of $35. Well worth it. This prime is much better than my A 35-70 f4 at 35mm. I won't part with the M, nor do I feel the need for another 35. It's a little sweet- heart of a lens.
Boris Liberman wrote:
Hi!
I think Boris has the K24/3.5 (just like me, you see? :-)
Kostas
ft> Okay,
ft> In that case, Boris, get a 20mm lens. They're even more fun than a 24mm...
Kostas and Frank - you're both wrong. I have K 24/2.8.
What I found out about my very M 35/2.8 is two things:
1. At f/2.8 and f/4 it gives very pleasing results 2. At f/5.6 and on the look of the picture is anything but pleasing. I cannot really explain what displeases me, but it would seem as if the result is over-sharpened - if it makes any sense to you.
I've shot 2 films exclusively with that lens on my trip to Norway and I will have to review these scans very carefully.
Also my ME Super keeps giving me warnings. On one of these two films two frames just overlapped - no inter-frame distance whatsoever. I am starting to think that I have to get rid of it :(... And then I will have to think of AF optics in favor of my older glass...
Frankly :), I am not sure where do I go these days, so for now I am keeping things as they are...
Lon, who said this list was any good anyway? ;)
Boris ([EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED])
