Just received a SMC M100 2.8.

robert · 03-22-2016, 07:08 AM - **1 Like**

I thought this might make a decent affordable portrait lens but haven't had a chance to
do any portraits yet but did take it out and about with me the other day and
I am quite impressed so far.Anyone else use this lens? Here's a few samples.
All with no adjustments.

Last edited by robert; 03-31-2016 at 10:06 AM.

pathdoc · 03-22-2016, 08:47 AM

Devoid of 21st Century context as they are, any of these pics looks like it could have been seen on film the year the lens was made. I find that with my older lenses too, M's and Takumars. I can't prove it, and maybe it's just the power of suggestion, but some of the shots they take look like the shots of their time, especially on film (even modern film) and in natural light. Metaphysical? Outrageous? Perhaps, but it can look really, really cool.

robert · 03-22-2016, 11:32 AM

Originally posted by pathdoc

Devoid of 21st Century context as they are, any of these pics looks like it could have been seen on film the year the lens was made. I find that with my older lenses too, M's and Takumars. I can't prove it, and maybe it's just the power of suggestion, but some of the shots they take look like the shots of their time, especially on film (even modern film) and in natural light. Metaphysical? Outrageous? Perhaps, but it can look really, really cool.

I think a big part of what you describe has to do with there being no post processing in the photos, at least not these lol

lytrytyr · 03-22-2016, 11:45 AM

This lens tends to look weak in Yoshihiko Takinami's "resolution" tests,
but that's mainly because of its lower contrast,
like we're seeing in @robert's unboosted photos.

The lens is fully capable of delivering "modern" results,
if that's what you happen to want,
with a little twenty-first century tweaking.

IMHO, it's one of the best M-series lenses.
I worked mine hard for years on film,
and still use it occasionally on digital.

Andy123 · 03-22-2016, 02:39 PM

I got one in like new condition just before my 77mm ltd. I think it is fantastic. I don't know about resolution test. But my copy gives great resolution and contrast but I agree with lytrytyr it is certainly one of the best manual lenses I own.

Great picture quality, easy to focus and small. Way better than the 135mms I have or the SMC m 200mm f4. Actually over the past year of shooting it compares well against the 77mm ltd for outdoor shots. The 77 is of course auto focus and auto aperture so it gets used more but if I were on a tight budget, I could do most things the 77mm does this little lens except maybe matching the wide open bokeh with 3D look. Although the 100 will produce great bokeh too. It has made some good portraits.

robert · 03-22-2016, 06:51 PM

With a few adjustments in lightroom the image becomes more pleasing to me.

Dewman · 03-22-2016, 10:39 PM - **1 Like**

IMHO, one of the finest strictly manual lenses ever made.

Jonathan Mac · 03-23-2016, 01:12 AM

I find images from the M 100/2.8 tend to look dull (lacking in contrast) without post-processing but from f/4 it's sharp and it's very compact for the focal length.

robert · 03-23-2016, 02:41 AM

Originally posted by Jonathan Mac

I find images from the M 100/2.8 tend to look dull (lacking in contrast) without post-processing but from f/4 it's sharp and it's very compact for the focal length.

I've often wondered are the photos that look dull actually closer to what we see instead of what looks pleasing to us?

**pepperberry farm** · 03-23-2016, 02:56 AM

I bought a copy of the M100/2.8 along with an M135/3.5 - both in great shape and take amazing shots... I plan on Singling with them later in the year....

pathdoc · 03-23-2016, 04:47 AM

Originally posted by robert

I've often wondered are the photos that look dull actually closer to what we see instead of what looks pleasing to us?

IMO yes. I prefer the "dull" shots for that reason.

lytrytyr · 03-24-2016, 10:09 AM

Originally posted by robert

I've often wondered are the photos that look dull actually closer to what we see instead of what looks pleasing to us?

I guess that all depends on your computer screen and whether you have cataracts or not!

Dewman · 03-24-2016, 10:59 AM - **1 Like**

Well.... I think that leads us down the path of "personal preference." I'm one who likes a fair amount of contrast and saturation, but not to the extent that it looks too over the top. But, that's not to say it should be everyone's cup of tea. Personally, I've seen very few images, SOOTC, that wouldn't benefit from a little tweaking, but the DA 50mm f:1.8 comes closest to that ideal, IMHO.

pathdoc · 03-24-2016, 11:19 AM

Originally posted by Dewman

but the DA 50mm f:1.8 comes closest to that ideal, IMHO.

No zealot like a recent convert?

**monochrome** · 03-24-2016, 12:17 PM

Congratulations. You will be pleased.

I owned one for several years before I replaced it with the K105/2.8. I was told I would regret the decision.

My overall impression is it renders a bit cooler than the K (as I believe do many 'M's) which might account for a few impressions that it is flat or lacks contrast. I always had trouble exposing correctly on a dSLR with the M100 until I intentionally underexposed .3 - .7 EV After which it seemed to give me more dynamic colors in PP and camera Joey.

On the whole it is sharp and a pleasant tactile experience. I had none of the vibrancy issues on film, which is why I suspect GB metering is the culprit (on K10D and K-01).

Personally I favor the warmer K but that's just a preference

03-22-2016, 07:08 AM - 1 Like	#1
robert Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: ohio Posts: 336	Just received a SMC M100 2.8. I thought this might make a decent affordable portrait lens but haven't had a chance to do any portraits yet but did take it out and about with me the other day and I am quite impressed so far.Anyone else use this lens? Here's a few samples. All with no adjustments. Last edited by robert; 03-31-2016 at 10:06 AM.

03-22-2016, 02:39 PM	#5
Andy123 Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: Stafford, VA Posts: 128	100mm 2.8 I got one in like new condition just before my 77mm ltd. I think it is fantastic. I don't know about resolution test. But my copy gives great resolution and contrast but I agree with lytrytyr it is certainly one of the best manual lenses I own. Great picture quality, easy to focus and small. Way better than the 135mms I have or the SMC m 200mm f4. Actually over the past year of shooting it compares well against the 77mm ltd for outdoor shots. The 77 is of course auto focus and auto aperture so it gets used more but if I were on a tight budget, I could do most things the 77mm does this little lens except maybe matching the wide open bokeh with 3D look. Although the 100 will produce great bokeh too. It has made some good portraits.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
M100/2.8 vs M100/4 Macro	yusuf	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	4	12-28-2012 04:05 AM
Just received a SMC Pentax-A - Aperture Ring Question	Spodeworld	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	7	11-22-2011 08:49 AM
Replacing M100/2.8 and M135/3.5 with M120/2.8 - crazy?	Marc Sabatella	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	2	09-05-2010 12:41 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax SMC M35/2, M50/1.4, A50/2, M100/2.8, F24-50, A24-50, A35-105, A70-210	raybird	Sold Items	11	02-16-2009 10:23 PM

03-22-2016, 08:47 AM	#2
pathdoc Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2015 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,381	Devoid of 21st Century context as they are, any of these pics looks like it could have been seen on film the year the lens was made. I find that with my older lenses too, M's and Takumars. I can't prove it, and maybe it's just the power of suggestion, but some of the shots they take look like the shots of their time, especially on film (even modern film) and in natural light. Metaphysical? Outrageous? Perhaps, but it can look really, really cool.

03-22-2016, 11:32 AM	#3
robert Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: ohio Posts: 336 Original Poster	Originally posted by pathdoc Devoid of 21st Century context as they are, any of these pics looks like it could have been seen on film the year the lens was made. I find that with my older lenses too, M's and Takumars. I can't prove it, and maybe it's just the power of suggestion, but some of the shots they take look like the shots of their time, especially on film (even modern film) and in natural light. Metaphysical? Outrageous? Perhaps, but it can look really, really cool. I think a big part of what you describe has to do with there being no post processing in the photos, at least not these lol

03-22-2016, 11:45 AM	#4
lytrytyr Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2011 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,310	This lens tends to look weak in Yoshihiko Takinami's "resolution" tests, but that's mainly because of its lower contrast, like we're seeing in @robert's unboosted photos. The lens is fully capable of delivering "modern" results, if that's what you happen to want, with a little twenty-first century tweaking. IMHO, it's one of the best M-series lenses. I worked mine hard for years on film, and still use it occasionally on digital.

03-22-2016, 06:51 PM	#6
robert Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: ohio Posts: 336 Original Poster	With a few adjustments in lightroom the image becomes more pleasing to me.

03-22-2016, 10:39 PM - 1 Like	#7
Dewman Veteran Member Join Date: May 2012 Location: Idaho Posts: 5,492	IMHO, one of the finest strictly manual lenses ever made.

03-23-2016, 01:12 AM	#8
Jonathan Mac Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Madrid, Spain Posts: 10,902	I find images from the M 100/2.8 tend to look dull (lacking in contrast) without post-processing but from f/4 it's sharp and it's very compact for the focal length.

03-23-2016, 02:41 AM	#9
robert Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: ohio Posts: 336 Original Poster	Originally posted by Jonathan Mac I find images from the M 100/2.8 tend to look dull (lacking in contrast) without post-processing but from f/4 it's sharp and it's very compact for the focal length. I've often wondered are the photos that look dull actually closer to what we see instead of what looks pleasing to us?

03-23-2016, 02:56 AM	#10
pepperberry farm amateur dirt farmer Join Date: Dec 2014 Location: probably out in a field somewhere... Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 41,751	I bought a copy of the M100/2.8 along with an M135/3.5 - both in great shape and take amazing shots... I plan on Singling with them later in the year....

03-23-2016, 04:47 AM	#11
pathdoc Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2015 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,381	Originally posted by robert I've often wondered are the photos that look dull actually closer to what we see instead of what looks pleasing to us? IMO yes. I prefer the "dull" shots for that reason.

03-24-2016, 10:09 AM	#12
lytrytyr Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2011 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,310	Originally posted by robert I've often wondered are the photos that look dull actually closer to what we see instead of what looks pleasing to us? I guess that all depends on your computer screen and whether you have cataracts or not!

03-24-2016, 10:59 AM - 1 Like	#13
Dewman Veteran Member Join Date: May 2012 Location: Idaho Posts: 5,492	Well.... I think that leads us down the path of "personal preference." I'm one who likes a fair amount of contrast and saturation, but not to the extent that it looks too over the top. But, that's not to say it should be everyone's cup of tea. Personally, I've seen very few images, SOOTC, that wouldn't benefit from a little tweaking, but the DA 50mm f:1.8 comes closest to that ideal, IMHO.

03-24-2016, 11:19 AM	#14
pathdoc Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2015 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,381	Originally posted by Dewman but the DA 50mm f:1.8 comes closest to that ideal, IMHO. No zealot like a recent convert?

03-24-2016, 12:17 PM	#15
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Congratulations. You will be pleased. I owned one for several years before I replaced it with the K105/2.8. I was told I would regret the decision. My overall impression is it renders a bit cooler than the K (as I believe do many 'M's) which might account for a few impressions that it is flat or lacks contrast. I always had trouble exposing correctly on a dSLR with the M100 until I intentionally underexposed .3 - .7 EV After which it seemed to give me more dynamic colors in PP and camera Joey. On the whole it is sharp and a pleasant tactile experience. I had none of the vibrancy issues on film, which is why I suspect GB metering is the culprit (on K10D and K-01). Personally I favor the warmer K but that's just a preference