[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree, Fred, on all counts.
It's not as bad a lens as everyone says. $50 is a bit high. Not that it's a bad lens for $50, but rather, they can usually be gotten for cheaper.
I have one, and I wasn't unhappy with it - until I bought the SMC 2.5 135mm from Shel. A much superior lens, in terms of sharpness and bokeh (I'll be posting several GFM shots taken with the SMC later - I love this lens!).
I can vouch for the SMC 135 2.5 (58mm filter) also. Its a great lens, great bokeh, color, and sharpness. The only thing I don't like is the hood that is supposed to be for this lens. It seems really hard to put on. Its supposed to clip on to the interior lens rings, but just when you think its on right, its cockeyed.
But, the "bayonet" is only "bad" in comparison to the SMC - on it's own it's a competent performer, IMHO. It usually goes for around $30 or $40 though.
cheers, frank
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
From: Fred <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good? Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 18:06:22 -0400
> is asking $50 for it
> The Takumar 135/2.5 bayonet is a dog - best avoided,
Well, I would tend to disagree with the canine qualities. It's not the best Pentax 135 out there, but I wouldn't exactly call it a dog, either. Still, I do think that $50 might be a bit too high.
Fred
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Premium: Up to 11 personalized e-mail addresses and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
