: Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good?
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 05:24:45 +0200
Yes, you loved it so much you would not recomend spending more than
$20 on it. Contradiction?
A.
On 12 Jun 2004, at 04:23, Christian Skofteland wrote:
I loved it. So there! :-p
Christian Skofteland
[EMAIL PROTECTED
Antonio, who wrote:
Hey Frank,
There is no need for shouting or foul language. If you cant debate a
point like and adult, do us all a favour, dont debate it at all.
also wrote (to Christian):
What a load of rubish. You are just being contrary because I said it
was a dog.
Antonio, there
Ryan, Christian and I differ as to our judgement of the lens. I state
my views clearly and leave others to make their own. There is no need
for shouting or foul language. If I think someone is talking rubish I
will tell them, that is different. There is plenty of room for
disagrement and
PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 11:35 PM
Subject: Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good?
What a load of rubish. You are just being contrary because I said it
was a dog. If anyone else where to have said it wasnt a good lens - as
many have over the years you would no doubt have agreed
Antonio,
Ryan, Christian and I differ as to our judgement of the lens. I state
my views clearly and leave others to make their own. There is no need
for shouting or foul language. If I think someone is talking rubish I
will tell them, that is different. There is plenty of room for
01:50
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good?
You can get an M 135/2.5 for $60 or so. It's far superior to the
Takumar lens.
BTW, I'm surprised that anyone would challenge Aparicio for offering an
opinion on a lens. Let's try to maintain some balance here.
On Jun 11
and it's value
in the current used lens market place is about US$30.00.
Chrissy
- Original Message -
From: Antonio Aparicio [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2004 6:25 AM
Subject: Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good?
Chrissy,
I thought we were
Wow, this discussion sure took off.
Those of you who gave your opinion of the lens in
question based on your experience, thank you. Those
who dislike the lens will probably be happy to hear
I've decided not to buy it, instead I found a SMC
Pentax-M 135/3.5 cheaper than the Takumar was. I
really
Jon M wrote:
Wow, this discussion sure took off.
Those of you who gave your opinion of the lens in
question based on your experience, thank you. Those
who dislike the lens will probably be happy to hear
I've decided not to buy it, instead I found a SMC
Pentax-M 135/3.5 cheaper than the Takumar
On Jun 12, 2004, at 3:22 PM, Jon M wrote:
instead I found a SMC
Pentax-M 135/3.5 cheaper than the Takumar was.
Congratulations. That's a very sharp and contrasty lens. Probably one
of the best bargains in Pentax land. Ditto that a 200/4 you want. The M
200/4 is also very good, although it
Jon,
Contgratulations on your new lens. Let us know how you get on with it.
I owned the SMC-M 135/3,5 briefly too and didnt like it much either,
but perhaps I had a dud example. I own the SMCK 135/3.5 and the 135/2.5
and they are both excellent if ever you feel like venturing further
along the
Antonio Aparicio wrote:
The Takumar 135/2.5 bayonet is a dog - best avoided,
A.
By whose word?
Are you testifying directly and personally that it's not a worthy lens?
How do you know? Have you personally tested one?
Or are you parroting someone else's opinion?
keith whaley
On 11 Jun 2004, at
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
Aha, the opinion police are back!
I've owned it, it was a dog, I got rid of it. My opinion.
Antonio
On 11 Jun 2004, at 23:58, Keith Whaley wrote:
Antonio Aparicio wrote:
The Takumar 135/2.5 bayonet is a dog - best avoided,
A.
By whose word?
Are you testifying directly and personally that it's not
Okay! Fair enough. I accept your evaluation.
When I test mine, I'll report back, and we can compare the results...
keith whaley
Antonio Aparicio wrote:
Aha, the opinion police are back!
I've owned it, it was a dog, I got rid of it. My opinion.
Antonio
On 11 Jun 2004, at 23:58, Keith Whaley wrote:
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
You can get an M 135/2.5 for $60 or so. It's far superior to the
Takumar lens.
BTW, I'm surprised that anyone would challenge Aparicio for offering an
opinion on a lens. Let's try to maintain some balance here.
On Jun 11, 2004, at 6:06 PM, Fred wrote:
is asking $50 for it
The Takumar 135/2.5
,
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
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
BTW, I'm surprised that anyone would challenge Aparicio for offering an
opinion on a lens. Let's try to maintain some balance here.
On Jun 11, 2004, at 6:06 PM, Fred wrote:
is asking $50 for it
The Takumar 135/2.5 bayonet is a dog - best avoided,
Well, I would tend to disagree with the
. 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
Yet another reply gets eaten by the list... Attempt
#2, here goes.
What about SMC Pentax-M f3.5 vs this non-SMC f2.5? I
do want a fairly fast lens. I have a 50mm f2 and love
it.
Anyway, this particular Takumar 135/2.5 seems to
include a UV filter and Pentax front lens cap. I'm
tempted to offer
mine when I bought the *ist D, and it's probably my only non-A lens
that I regret letting go
Christian Skofteland
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: Jon M [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 5:37 PM
Subject: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good
I loved it. So there! :-p
Christian Skofteland
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: Antonio Aparicio [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 6:22 PM
Subject: Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good?
Aha, the opinion police are back!
I've owned
135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good?
$50.00 is too much to spend on a paperweight. Well I've over stated the
case. It's not a great lens
to some people it might not even be considered a good lens. I should
think you could get it for less.
Jon,
I have owned the Takumar 135/2.5 once in the past. I bought one new off
the shelf in 1982, paid about $80 in 1982 dollars for it. I was so
disappointed in it's performance that I sold all my Pentax equipment a
few months later. ( I was pressured somewhat in this by my two best
friends
BTW, I'm surprised that anyone would challenge Aparicio for offering an
opinion on a lens. Let's try to maintain some balance here.
On Jun 11, 2004, at 6:06 PM, Fred wrote:
is asking $50 for it
The Takumar 135/2.5 bayonet is a dog - best avoided,
Well, I would tend to disagree
What a load of rubish. You are just being contrary because I said it
was a dog. If anyone else where to have said it wasnt a good lens - as
many have over the years you would no doubt have agreed and said, yes
its only worth $20 or $30 ... given that the questioner is being asked
$40 for the
it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
From: Antonio Aparicio [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good?
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 05:24:45 +0200
Yes, you loved it so much you would not recomend spending more than $20
: Friday, June 11, 2004 11:35 PM
Subject: Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good?
What a load of rubish. You are just being contrary because I said it
was a dog. If anyone else where to have said it wasnt a good lens - as
many have over the years you would no doubt have agreed and said, yes
its
The SMC 2.5/135mm is not an M, it's a K.
Jens
Jens Bladt
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 12. juni 2004 01:50
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good?
You can
31 matches
Mail list logo
