The M Club!

[jsherman999]

.


More from this afternoon's M 85 f/2 excursion.

cropped

[jsherman999]

.


More from M 85 f/2:

1)

2)

3)

4)

5)

6)

7)

8)

9)

10) gettin' cranky about the heat, want's to head home

11)

12)

13)

14)

15)

16)

17)

18)

[anomaly]

Well.. you have convinced me.

Next lens puchase = 85mm f/2 M!

[Marc Sabatella]

Originally Posted by jsherman999

However, I'm not sure where the M 85's lack-of-sharpness rep began, but I
can tell you definitively that it's undeserved. I think this is a case of something
incorrect getting out there, and then getting repeated until it's assumed to
be true.

Well, I can say that *quite a few* people who actually own the lens mention that they find it soft at the wider apertures - which is where I'd have been using it most of the time (concert photography). And check out resolution numbers measured by Yoshihiko on his site:

http://www.takinami.com/yoshihiko/ph...est/index.html

The scores of 28 for center sharpness at f/2 and 35 at f/2.8 are basically the worst of any lens he tested, by a pretty substantial margin. The shorter lenses at f/2.8 scored in the 60's and 70's, and the longer ones in the upper 40's and 50's. The scores for the 85/2 look like an anomaly - except that the M100/2.8 actually doesn't fare too much better. Interestingly, while the 85 does sharpen up to "normal" levels by f/8, the 100 inexplicably doesn't reach the same level sharpness until f/16. So I could certainly see the 85 coming off as sharper overall.

Now, maybe Yoshihiko did have a bad copy, but given that, as I said, quite a few people report similar softness at wider apertures (with some of them saying it is a particularly pleasing softness), I'm inclined to suspect that rather than all of them getting bad copies, you may have gotten an unusually *good* one. And of course, the images you have posted *do* show it to be really quite good.

Anyhow, even if I could be assured of getting one as good as yours, I'm still not convinced at $300 or more I wouldn't be better off with the DA70. If I had been able to score the 85 for under $150 as some have apparently been able to, that would be another matter.

[gokenin]

Jsherman you are an evil man I have to say that the pics you take with the old glass does increase the value of them. I have to admit I can't wait to get my 85 and 55 back from Eric hope I can get another 20-30 years out of them

[jsherman999]

Originally Posted by Marc Sabatella

Well, I can say that *quite a few* people who
actually own the lens mention that they find it soft at the wider apertures - which
is where I'd have been using it most of the time (concert photography). And
check out resolution numbers measured by Yoshihiko on his site:

http://www.takinami.com/yoshihiko/ph...est/index.html

The scores of 28 for center sharpness at f/2 and 35 at f/2.8 are basically the
worst of any lens he tested, by a pretty substantial margin. The shorter lenses
at f/2.8 scored in the 60's and 70's, and the longer ones in the upper 40's and
50's. The scores for the 85/2 look like an anomaly - except that the M100/2.8
actually doesn't fare too much better. Interestingly, while the 85 does sharpen
up to "normal" levels by f/8, the 100 inexplicably doesn't reach the same level
sharpness until f/16. So I could certainly see the 85 coming off as sharper overall.

Now, maybe Yoshihiko did have a bad copy, but given that, as I said, quite a few
people report similar softness at wider apertures (with some of them saying it is
a particularly pleasing softness), I'm inclined to suspect that rather than all of
them getting bad copies, you may have gotten an unusually *good* one. And of
course, the images you have posted *do* show it to be really quite good.


Anyhow, even if I could be assured of getting one as good as yours, I'm still not
convinced at $300 or more I wouldn't be better off with the DA70. If I had been
able to score the 85 for under $150 as some have apparently been able to, that
would be another matter.

I guess there could have been a batch of 'bad' copies out there. At any rate,
I've only used my copy on a K100D Super and K20D - no film bodies. I never
was really as floored by it on the K100D, but once I started shooting it on the K20D,
that sensor really showed what this lens can do, and I saw it in a whole new
light.

Some of my lenses seemed exactly the same K100D -> K20D, several got worse,
but this one and a couple others really took off. The K20D sensor shows lenses
for what they really are, good or bad, so I think that at this point in time, my
experience with this lens is just as legit and applicable as 15-year old resolution
tests done with film (& possibly questionable copies of the lens.) I think the proof
is, in the end, the images.

As to whether or not it's worth $300 - well, I put this up for sale before I tried it on the
K20D and I had a taker for the full price of $295, but I decided not to sell
after I came to my senses. If you have to choose between this and the Da 70ltd,
you may want to go with the AF DA 70, but if you don't need to make that choice
and you're interested in the best M-series ever sold (IMO,) $300 is quite fair. If
you find it for under $200, it's a no-brainer.

(But I won't be selling mine anymore )


.

[Salminus]

Hy there,
im also love all these all lenses, just started to collect them.

have an M 50 1.4 and a M 28 2.8

I found a smal place in my home town with lots of vitage photography stuff,
among the things that drew my atention were:
k 100 f4 macro (this one seems like a though one to get as the owner said)
and
k 135 2.5

both are in mint+ condition

just wanted to know if any of you has them and what do you think about them

here I sen send some pics of some friends show last night. all with the 50 at 1.4


thanks!!!
Joaquin

[IMG]D:\Fotos\The Ramirez-Agosto 2008\IMGP8963.JPG[/IMG]
[IMG]D:\Fotos\The Ramirez-Agosto 2008\IMGP8964.JPG[/IMG]
[IMG]D:\Fotos\The Ramirez-Agosto 2008\IMGP8873.JPG[/IMG]
[IMG]D:\Fotos\The Ramirez-Agosto 2008\IMGP8916.JPG[/IMG]

[stevebrot]

Originally Posted by gokenin

Jsherman you are an evil man I have to say that the pics you take with the old glass does increase the value of them. I have to admit I can't wait to get my 85 and 55 back from Eric hope I can get another 20-30 years out of them

I firmly believe that jsherman is in league with the powers of darkness to get such wonderful results from every lens that he touches.

Honestly, though, great work J!

Steve

[jsherman999]

Originally Posted by stevebrot

I firmly believe that jsherman is in league with the powers of darkness to get such wonderful results from every lens that he touches.

Honestly, though, great work J!

Steve

Thanks for the kind words. I hate to sound like a Pentax fanboy, but sometimes
I feel like I'm just aiming & shooting and the wonderful glass/sensor combo
is doing everything for me. From what I've seen & shot from friends' and borrowed
gear, the IQ of the K20D + good glass combo is not going to be reproducible
for anything close to this price category from any other manufacturer. I think
Mike Johnston's placing of the K20D's IQ above the D300, etc, was spot on.

[aletara81]

I've recently taken a 135mm f3,5; It is good but not good as the other M lens that I've got, a 50mm f1,7

Pentax-M 50mm 1,7:

[Rockdoctor]

Originally Posted by aletara81

I've recently taken a 135mm f3,5; It is good but not good as the other M lens that I've got, a 50mm f1,7

Pentax-M 50mm 1,7:

Nice shots. I don't have a 50mm 1.7 yet. I have the 1.4 maybe it's overkill to get the 1.7. I do love my 1.4 though.

[gpaual]

..have the 135/1:3.5 & the M 80-200 1:4.5....picked up both for less than 100 and both are optimal performers.
also have the 50/1:1.2, and the 24 1:2.8 ...not sure if they are m or not, as it isn't stamped M so they may be f's

[Marc Sabatella]

Originally Posted by gpaual

also have the 50/1:1.2, and the 24 1:2.8 ...not sure if they are m or not, as it isn't stamped M so they may be f's

"F" lenses are auto-focus, basically a predecessor to the FA line. They should have "-F" after the word Pentax somewhere on the lens.

Lenses that are K-mount (as opposed to screwmount) and say "SMC" but don't have "-A" or "-M" after the word Pentax anywhere are generally referred to as "K" series, even though there is really no such official term. Then there are the non-SMC lenses; the ones generally available say "Takumar" and are referred to as such.

[8540tomg]

Originally Posted by gpaual

..have the 135/1:3.5 & the M 80-200 1:4.5....picked up both for less than 100 and both are optimal performers.
also have the 50/1:1.2, and the 24 1:2.8 ...not sure if they are m or not, as it isn't stamped M so they may be f's

Gpaual.

I think Marc is correct and you will find those two lenses are from the K series. If they are they will both be excellent lenses. As the proud owner of such fine glass you will be expected to post in the K Club as well. Nice shots with the Ms bye the way.

Tom G

[jsherman999]

.


Some early evening shots from the 100 f/2.8: