Actually it was a bit stupid of me not to have checked it before. Considering I repair (and sometimes screw-up) things for a living I should have suspected something after all the good reviews I'd heard. However I've heard lots of good reviews of things I don't like in the least. ;-)
Don > -----Original Message----- > From: Graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2004 5:37 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: NOW I understand! was_ KEH M100/2.8 > > > I think I have mentioned on the list several times in the past > that you can > never tell what has been done to a used lens. You article makes > that point with > far more precision. > > -- > > 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 > >> > >> > > > > > > > > -- > graywolf > http://www.graywolfphoto.com > Off List Replies To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" > >
