I'm testing a nice Pentax-FA f4,7-5,8 100-300mm silver version. Bought it after being surprised by the performance of its shorter brother (35-80mm f/4-5.6).
Plasticky feeling, wobbly build, plastic mounts, but both very good for the price (very cheap).
The 100-300mm isn't great wide open, but it performs very well stopped down to f/8.
Here is a shot of a red hibiscus flower, first with the 100-300 at f/8 135mm, then with the Elmarit M at f/2.8.
Both pics were adjusted in Lightroom, so the color rendition of the two images is not an accurate indication of the difference between the two lenses.
The bokeh looks different, but one lens was stopped down, while the other was used wide open.
Focusing distance and focal are very close, though.
I like the rendition of the Leitz Canada Elmarit M 135mm, but the plasticky zoom at f/8 beats such a noble, expensive lens by a considerable margin, in both resolution and contrast.
Of course there are three stops of difference, and such result doesn't come unexpected, but my point here is that a well designed AF (consumer!) zoom from film times can still be quite satisfying, if used at its sweet spot (medium aperture and avoiding the extremes of the focal range).
In this case it is even more surprising because the lens came with two very evident fungus spots on the inside of the front group, right in the middle of the glass. No lens hood either, but i see no veiling/flare.
cheers
Paolo