LGLA wrote:

"David J. Littleboy" wrote in message
...

"LGLA" wrote:

I had a new '97 67 and a new 135 macro lens for it, I was very
unimpressed
with the quality of that lens. It was not very sharp, had little
contrast
and
dull coloration... to overemphasize a bit. That should have been the
sharpest
lens they make.

That's a seriously cheap lens. Expecting Zeiss quality from a US$250 (EX
quality at KEH) lens is rather off the wall. The 100/4.0 macro is a
US$600
(EX quality at KEH) lens, and might have a better chance of competing.
You
have to read the fine print and think: the 135/4.0 only goes down to
1:3.2
(it's not even a half-arsed macro lens) and is advertised as "also
does well
as a portrait lens". Sheesh. It's a toy The 100/4.0 goes down to
almost 1:2, which is at least respectable.

Yes that is some insight I do agree with, however, which 100mm F/4 macro
are you referring to? F/2 compared to F/32?


I believe he's talking about magnification rather than aperture.

Greg
--
Support the Lo Desert Proto Sites:
http://lodesertprotosites.org