Paul
Paul
On Oct 31, 2004, at 5:59 PM, Don Sanderson wrote:
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
