You guys really had me going wondering what all the fuss was about regarding the M100/2.8. Mine didn't seem even just "mediocre" and I rather lamented the $78 I paid for it. Hearing people pay 150,175,and over 400 dollars just amazed me.
Decided I better take a closer look at mine and see what was up. I noticed that there were faint marks on the rear retaining ring like it had been tightened....... or maybe removed? OK, so I removed the elements, cleaned them and compared them to the lens element diagram on Bojidar's K-Mount page: http://kmp.bdimitrov.de/lenses/primes/_optics/100f2.8.gif The rearmost element, which has just a slightly different curvature on the front than the back...... was reversed! I'm surprised the lens focused as well as it did. (Which really wasn't very good.) Now I see what the fuss was about. Here's a quick shot of "Beauregard the Benevolent Basset" at 5.6 with the lens put together properly: http://www.donsauction.com/PDML/M100fixed.jpg Just a quickie JPEG with the on camera flash but what a difference. Much Better! Thanks for getting me curious. Don > -----Original Message----- > From: Fred [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2004 2:02 PM > To: Jens Bladt > Subject: Re: KEH M100/2.8 > > > > The SMC K 2.8/105mm has better resolving power than both the 85mm > > and 100mm. > > My experience is that also (K 105/2.8, vs M 85/2 and M 100/2.8), > although the 105/2.8 has (in my opinion) rather ghoulish bokeh, > while the bokeh of the two M lenses is better, I think (I am sure > about that for the M 85/2, but I'm admittedly relying on shakier > memory for the bokeh of the M 100/2.8). > > Fred > >
