Originally posted by Riggomatic In the yard, between rain showers. Just showing the difference between f2.8 and f4
SMC-K 120mm f2.8 at f4
SMC-K 120mm f2.8 at f2.8
Nice, Riggomatic.
I'd love to compare the K 120 and the M 120 side by side. I just got my M 120/2.8 last Monday, and Wednesday I used it at the infamously-named music venue here in Spring Green. Of roughly 360 exposures, I used the M 120 a tenth of the time, about the same as my K 50/1.4. About 50% of the exposure were made with my K 85/1.8, not surprising, and my K 24/2.8 got the second-most use, for about 30% of the exposures. (Next time I may use my old Nikkor 24/2.8 instead, which I remember as having better IQ than the K 24/2.8--though I won't be able to move around quite as freely with the Nikkor given its somewhat tenuous interfacing with the K-3ii.)
I was using the M120 in lieu of my K 135/2.5, a lens I LOVE; but I wanted to see how the M 120 did since it was new and also about half the weight of the K 135. I generally liked what I saw. I'm not convinced it's quite as sharp as the K 135, but it's close, and may be a bit more user-friendly since it's not quite as tight framing-wise. Not sure I can compare the bokeh, but I did like what the M 120 produced.
Here's another image from that night, this one of Jake'O, who's just so much fun to watch and listen to. This was shot at ISO 3200, 1/50 sec., probably at f/2.8; the M 120 was easy to focus quickly and accurately, even with my 62-year-old right eye (thank goodness for the K-3ii's adjustable diopter). The bokeh seems nice and smooth to me, thanks in part to the 8 blades of the M 120/2.8. I cropped a tiny bit off the right and bottom of the frame, but Jake'O's right hand is up there in the corner, which shows how sharp the M 120 can be: