On Wed, 2002-12-18 at 14:07, jcoyle wrote:
My understanding of the formal way to measure aperture is that it is the
ratio of the diameter of the _perceived_ aperture at the film plane to the
focal length of the lens in use*, and is thus at least as dependent upon the
effects of post-aperture
On Tue, 2002-12-17 at 12:20, Fred wrote:
Fred wrote:
F [The SMC K 135/2.5 is on the left, while the Takumar Bayonet
F 135/2.5 is on the right.]
Fred, Unfortunately I was referring to the SMC K 135/2.5 . :o( The
front lens diameter as it appeared to my limited measuring
capabilities is
: M. J. Langford, Basic Photography, Focal Press 1973
- Original Message -
From: Scott Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 12:19 AM
Subject: Re: SMC Takumar 135/2.5
On Tue, 2002-12-17 at 12:20, Fred wrote:
Fred wrote:
F [The SMC K 135/2.5
SN Even still, the entrance
SN pupil on mine looks like about 51mm, which would make it f/2.6 or
SN f/2.7.
Same conclusion here.
Yes. The Takumar Bayonet 135/2.5, with its meager 52mm filter
thread (unlike the K 135/2.5, which has a 58mm thread) would seem to
be unlikely to be much faster
Fred wrote:
F [The SMC K 135/2.5 is on the left, while the Takumar Bayonet
F 135/2.5 is on the right.]
Fred,
Unfortunately I was referring to the SMC K 135/2.5 . :o(
The front lens diameter as it appeared to my limited measuring
capabilities is around 52mm, that translates to an
Just received a SMCT 135/2.5 (later version with same quality with SMC 135/2.5). I got
it for portrait because it has good quality at wide open aperture (no test it yet,
just based on other user reviews) and it is in near new condition as well as at a very
good price.
One question: There is a
Just received a SMCT 135/2.5 (later version with same quality with
SMC 135/2.5). I got it for portrait because it has good quality at
wide open aperture (no test it yet, just based on other user
reviews) and it is in near new condition as well as at a very good
price.
One question: There is a
7 matches
Mail list logo
