From: Eric Weir
On Oct 14, 2010, at 7:31 PM, John Sessoms wrote:
From: Eric Weir
On Oct 12, 2010, at 1:45 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
if I couldn't get a Pentax-A* 135/1.8
Don't see that at KEH. Most likely, perhaps certainly, out of
my league financially.
I rarely see them for sale,
On 10/13/2010 6:00 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 11:22 PM, Boris Libermanbori...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/13/2010 8:17 AM, Larry Colen wrote:
I know that better gear will not make me a better photographer.
Better gear makes up for my being a crappy photographer, allowing
From: Eric Weir
On Oct 12, 2010, at 1:45 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
if I couldn't get a Pentax-A* 135/1.8
Don't see that at KEH. Most likely, perhaps certainly, out of my league
financially.
I rarely see them for sale, although I never look on eBay, so there
could be one a week for all
On Oct 14, 2010, at 7:31 PM, John Sessoms wrote:
From: Eric Weir
On Oct 12, 2010, at 1:45 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
if I couldn't get a Pentax-A* 135/1.8
Don't see that at KEH. Most likely, perhaps certainly, out of my league
financially.
I rarely see them for sale, although I
On Oct 14, 2010, at 8:15 PM, Eric Weir wrote:
On Oct 14, 2010, at 7:31 PM, John Sessoms wrote:
From: Eric Weir
On Oct 12, 2010, at 1:45 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
if I couldn't get a Pentax-A* 135/1.8
Don't see that at KEH. Most likely, perhaps certainly, out of my league
On Oct 14, 2010, at 8:24 PM, paul stenquist wrote:
The last one I saw on ebay went for $900. . . . An A* 135/1.8 would not be a
practical buy for most.
My whole system -- a DS, a 28/2.8, 135/3.5, and 70/210/4 -- has cost me a
little over half that.
://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cdplayers/
http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/cdsound/
-Original Message-
From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of paul
stenquist
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 8:25 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Pentas M 135/3.5 vs
On Oct 12, 2010, at 10:33 PM, Boris Liberman wrote:
On 10/13/2010 2:36 AM, Eric Weir wrote:
On Oct 12, 2010, at 6:59 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote:
See? You just bought a lens and are already planning to replace it.
So much for your newbieness.
Never woulda occurred to me. You guys
On 10/13/2010 8:17 AM, Larry Colen wrote:
I know that better gear will not make me a better photographer.
Better gear makes up for my being a crappy photographer, allowing me
to get the photos anyways.
Spoken Darth Colen has. Strong the LBA and CBA are with him. Lost the
case is ;-).
--
On Oct 13, 2010, at 1:33 AM, Boris Liberman wrote:
Eric, just remember that thinking that better gear will make you a better
photographer leads to credit imbalance. Credit imbalance leads to suffering.
Suffering leads to the dark side.
I'm prone to that. My boss, who loves me, often says
On Oct 12, 2010, at 9:07 PM, J.C. O'Connell wrote:
Where does the A135/2.8 fit into the picture?
Those fit into the SMCK price range. About $150
if you can find one.
KEH has two at the moment. At about $50 more than your estimate. Momentarily
regretting -- mildly -- getting the M. Second
On Oct 12, 2010, at 9:44 PM, Bong Manayon wrote:
I think I have used all of the 135's Pentax could dish out (except for
the *s which I could not afford) including the non-SMC Takumars (both
the 2.5 and 2.8 versions). They are surprisingly sharp although with
a real bad propensity to flare.
On Oct 13, 2010, at 12:44 AM, P. J. Alling wrote:
I was extremely lucky, my copy of the SMC [K] 135 f3.5 came my way as a lens
cap on a MX purchased on ebay.
Wow! In that connection, bidding is about to end on the lens I bought yesterday
-- Pentax SMC M 135/3.6 -- with the bid currently
Come to the dark side...We have cookies.
--T shirt I saw somewhere.
On 10/13/2010 10:56 AM, Eric Weir wrote:
On Oct 13, 2010, at 1:33 AM, Boris Liberman wrote:
Eric, just remember that thinking that better gear will make you a better
photographer leads to credit imbalance. Credit
On Oct 13, 2010, at 11:10 AM, Eric Weir wrote:
Pentax SMC M 135/3.6
Make that 3.5.
--
Eric Weir
Decatur, GA USA
eew...@bellsouth.net
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
On Oct 12, 2010, at 5:56 PM, Cotty wrote:
You will go far Grasshopper.
Thanks, Coty -- Err, I think thanks.
Thanks anyway. Whatever.
--
Eric Weir
Decatur, GA USA
eew...@bellsouth.net
--
PDML
On Oct 13, 2010, at 11:12 AM, P. J. Alling wrote:
Come to the dark side...We have cookies.
Hmm. Not sure that guy's to be trusted. Sounds way, way too light.
--
Eric Weir
Decatur, GA USA
That should have been body cap not lens cap but you got the idea.
On 10/13/2010 11:10 AM, Eric Weir wrote:
On Oct 13, 2010, at 12:44 AM, P. J. Alling wrote:
I was extremely lucky, my copy of the SMC [K] 135 f3.5 came my way as a lens
cap on a MX purchased on ebay.
Wow! In that connection,
Eric,
Don't feel regret. You made a good choice.
I own most of the 135 mm lenses Pentax has made
(both K-mount and screw-mount)
That A135/2.8 is a bad one I don't want.
Regards, Bob S.
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 10:03 AM, Eric Weir eew...@bellsouth.net wrote:
On Oct 12, 2010, at 9:07 PM, J.C.
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 11:22 PM, Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/13/2010 8:17 AM, Larry Colen wrote:
I know that better gear will not make me a better photographer.
Better gear makes up for my being a crappy photographer, allowing me
to get the photos anyways.
Spoken Darth
Eric,
Love the article.
My poor lizard brain is overloaded.
Regards, Bob S. (Living amongst the crazies)
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Eric Weir eew...@bellsouth.net wrote:
On Oct 13, 2010, at 1:33 AM, Boris Liberman wrote:
Eric, just remember that thinking that better gear will make you
On Oct 13, 2010, at 8:07 AM, Eric Weir wrote:
On Oct 12, 2010, at 9:44 PM, Bong Manayon wrote:
I think I have used all of the 135's Pentax could dish out (except for
the *s which I could not afford) including the non-SMC Takumars (both
the 2.5 and 2.8 versions). They are surprisingly
On 10/13/2010 1:02 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
On Oct 13, 2010, at 8:07 AM, Eric Weir wrote:
On Oct 12, 2010, at 9:44 PM, Bong Manayon wrote:
I think I have used all of the 135's Pentax could dish out (except for
the *s which I could not afford) including the non-SMC Takumars (both
the 2.5 and
Earlier on this thread I mentioned that there was an smc m 135/3.5 in the late
stage of bidding with the bidding at a ridiculously low price. I decided to bid
on it. Bid $20 and was immediately outbid. Bid $30 and ended up winning.
In retrospect I think I wish foolish. I was tricked into --
On Oct 13, 2010, at 1:02 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
Heh! A couple weeks ago a friend noticed that I had more than just a couple
of cameras, and asked how many. Even counting the dead ones, the freebie
35mms and the old polaroids it was something like 24 bodies.
Mind you, I use less than
On Oct 13, 2010, at 2:20 PM, Eric Weir wrote:
I'll sell it, put it'll probably turn out to be worth the trouble I put
myself to.
Need to put a not in there.
--
Eric Weir
Decatur, GA USA
Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller
- Original Message -
From: Larry Colen l...@red4est.com
Subject: Re: Pentas M 135/3.5 vs. Takumar 135/2.5
On Oct 12, 2010, at 10:33 PM, Boris Liberman wrote:
On 10/13/2010 2:36 AM, Eric Weir wrote:
On Oct 12, 2010, at 6:59 PM
: Pentas M 135/3.5 vs. Takumar 135/2.5
On Oct 13, 2010, at 1:33 AM, Boris Liberman wrote:
Eric, just remember that thinking that better gear will make you a better
photographer leads to credit imbalance. Credit imbalance leads to
suffering. Suffering leads to the dark side.
I'm prone
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 11:07 PM, Eric Weir eew...@bellsouth.net wrote:
Thanks, Bong. While I'm at it, I've perused your photos on the Pentax site
more than once. I love them. And you do seem to have a lot of equipment. As
many cameras as most people have lenses?
Well, they sort of
On Oct 13, 2010, at 5:35 PM, Bong Manayon wrote:
Well, they sort of accumulated during the past decades...anyway, these
days I use the K10D the K-x.
On second though, I realized that was probably the case.
Following a treat of breakfast at a wonderful little Ethiopian restaurant here,
I stopped by Wings Camera, which sells mostly used stuff, a couple doors down.
Went to the Pentax shelf to see what they had. First lens I picked up was a
Takumar 135/2.5. Over the weekend a couple folks suggested
Is this a K-mount Takumar or a screw mount Takumar?
The K-mount Takumar (of which the 135mm f2.5 is one of the most
common) is considered to be a very poor quality lens, by Pentax
standards... starting with it's lack of SMC coatings. The K-mount
Takumars were consumer grade lenses and not at all
On Oct 12, 2010, at 12:53 PM, CheekyGeek wrote:
Is this a K-mount Takumar or a screw mount Takumar?
The K-mount Takumar (of which the 135mm f2.5 is one of the most
common) is considered to be a very poor quality lens, by Pentax
standards... starting with it's lack of SMC coatings. The
On Oct 12, 2010, at 12:53 PM, CheekyGeek wrote:
Is this a K-mount Takumar or a screw mount Takumar?
The K-mount Takumar (of which the 135mm f2.5 is one of the most
common) is considered to be a very poor quality lens, by Pentax
standards... starting with it's lack of SMC coatings. The
There IS an SMC K mount 135mm f2.5 that is a good and sought after
lens, but is it does NOT say Takumar on it. It simply says SMC
Pentax. If you find that, buy it. It is purportedly the same optical
design as its predecessor, the screw mount 135mm f2.5.
One thing I have learned is that faster
On Oct 12, 2010, at 1:11 PM, CheekyGeek wrote:
There IS an SMC K mount 135mm f2.5 that is a good and sought after
lens, but is it does NOT say Takumar on it. It simply says SMC
Pentax. If you find that, buy it. It is purportedly the same optical
design as its predecessor, the screw mount
Hi Eric,
I consider the Takumar an unfairly maligned lens. I took the following
three shots with the 135mm/2.5 bayonet the first few times I ever used
it, and wouldn't hesitate to pay $40 for it.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/walt_gilbert/4895210419/in/set-72157624608728365/#/
The second one is neat. That's some wild bokeh. The whole series is
deeply psychedelic, man. ;-)
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 1:22 PM, Walter Gilbert ldott...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Eric,
I consider the Takumar an unfairly maligned lens. I took the following
three shots with the 135mm/2.5
Thanks, Steve.
I've thought about getting getting post cards of those shots printed out
and selling them to hippies. ;-)
This shot here would have to be my favorite example of the bokeh that
lens can produce:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/walt_gilbert/4802635172/
(Yes, the title is
On Oct 12, 2010, at 12:22, Walter Gilbert wrote:
Hi Eric,
I consider the Takumar an unfairly maligned lens. I took the following three
shots with the 135mm/2.5 bayonet the first few times I ever used it, and
wouldn't hesitate to pay $40 for it.
Np contest. The M 135/3.5 is a far better lens: sharper, less flare,
and better built.
Paul
On Oct 12, 2010, at 12:40 PM, Eric Weir wrote:
Following a treat of breakfast at a wonderful little Ethiopian
restaurant here, I stopped by Wings Camera, which sells mostly used
stuff, a couple
I had the Takumar-K 135/2.5 and SMC-Pentax FA135/2.8 at the same time
and did a bunch of comparison testing with them. Wide open, there was
no competition at all: the Tak-K was junk compared to the FA135.
Stopped down to f/8 or smaller, the difference was mostly gone other
than the Tak-K's
You're going to get an earfull about the differences, however for
about $20-40 more you can get the SMCP 135mm f2.5, which is not to be
confused in any way with the Takumar. You can read a review of the
Pentax 135 f2.5 here
There's some nice M 135's at KEH. Always go for the Bargain lenses.
Great prices for nice lenses. Since I have an FA135 I have no need,
but for the DX format this is a nice focal length and I wouldn't
hesitate otherwise.
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 2:34 PM, P. J. Alling
webstertwenty...@gmail.com
On Oct 12, 2010, at 2:34 PM, P. J. Alling wrote:
You're going to get an earfull about the differences, however for about
$20-40 more you can get the SMCP 135mm f2.5,
I got about $200 for my SMCP 135/2.5 on ebay. Don't know if that was an
aberration, but there were plenty of bidders.
Paul
I bought mine for $69.00. ebay taketh ebay giveth away...
On 10/12/2010 3:36 PM, paul stenquist wrote:
On Oct 12, 2010, at 2:34 PM, P. J. Alling wrote:
You're going to get an earfull about the differences, however for about $20-40
more you can get the SMCP 135mm f2.5,
I got about $200 for
On Oct 12, 2010, at 1:44 PM, P N Stenquist wrote:
Np contest. The M 135/3.5 is a far better lens: sharper, less flare, and
better built.
Thanks, Paul.
--
Eric Weir
Decatur, GA USA
eew...@bellsouth.net
On Oct 12, 2010, at 1:45 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
if I couldn't get a Pentax-A* 135/1.8
Don't see that at KEH. Most likely, perhaps certainly, out of my league
financially.
--
Eric Weir
Decatur, GA
On Oct 12, 2010, at 2:34 PM, P. J. Alling wrote:
You're going to get an earfull about the differences, however for about
$20-40 more you can get the SMCP 135mm f2.5, which is not to be confused in
any way with the Takumar. You can read a review of the Pentax 135 f2.5 here
On 12/10/10, Eric Weir, discombobulated, unleashed:
I've bought an M 135/3.5 from KEH and will pick it up tomorrow
afternoon. After a little experience with it I'll be on the lookout for
the 2.5 version.
You will go far Grasshopper.
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places,
See? You just bought a lens and are already planning to replace it.
So much for your newbieness.
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 5:56 PM, Cotty cotty...@mac.com wrote:
On 12/10/10, Eric Weir, discombobulated, unleashed:
I've bought an M 135/3.5 from KEH and will pick it up tomorrow
afternoon. After a
My work here is done.
On 10/12/2010 6:59 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote:
See? You just bought a lens and are already planning to replace it.
So much for your newbieness.
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 5:56 PM, Cottycotty...@mac.com wrote:
On 12/10/10, Eric Weir, discombobulated, unleashed:
I've
On Oct 12, 2010, at 6:59 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote:
See? You just bought a lens and are already planning to replace it.
So much for your newbieness.
Never woulda occurred to me. You guys planted the seed.
/
-Original Message-
From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Eric
Weir
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2010 4:30 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Pentas M 135/3.5 vs. Takumar 135/2.5
On Oct 12, 2010, at 2:34 PM, P. J. Alling wrote:
You're going to get
-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Eric
Weir
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2010 4:30 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Pentas M 135/3.5 vs. Takumar 135/2.5
On Oct 12, 2010, at 2:34 PM, P. J. Alling wrote:
You're going to get an earfull about the differences
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 9:12 AM, P. J. Alling
webstertwenty...@gmail.com wrote:
I've been tempted by this lens in the past, but the institutional wisdom of
the list leans against it, according to Stan Halpin's page at least.
http://stans-photography.info/LongComments.html#135%20mm%20f/2.8%20A
OK, I have an SMC Takumar 3.5 (M42) that I picked up pretty cheap that I use on
my K20D. Have not used it much but early results seem good. Any comments on
this lens?
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML,
I think it's the same design as the SMC [K] 135 f3.5, much as the SMC
[K] f2.5 is the same optically as it's immediate predecessor, the SMC
Takumar 135 f2.5.
If that's true it's a fine performer, very sharp, very light compared to
the 2.5. The only problem is it's a PITA to focus in dim
On 10/13/2010 2:36 AM, Eric Weir wrote:
On Oct 12, 2010, at 6:59 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote:
See? You just bought a lens and are already planning to replace it.
So much for your newbieness.
Never woulda occurred to me. You guys planted the seed.
Eric, just remember that thinking that
59 matches
Mail list logo
