I`m looking forward to the scans Fred! I say it might be a little faster than rated because I was shooting side by side with Shel, we were both using LXae, 100 speed film, I was using the 135/2.3, he was using the renowned 85/1.8 (wish I had one), it was a dark and gloomy day and we were both wide open. I asked him what his shutter speed was and it was 1/60, same as mine. Bob Monaghan kind of hinted that the 200/3 and 135/2.3 are probably faster than rated, by today`s standards. I can understand grabbing the 135/1.8 when you need the speed, I would do the same thing if I had one :( Steve Larson Redondo Beach, California "Everyone has a photographic memory. Some just don't have film."
Fred wrote: > > Optical and build quality are second to none. > > I agree with Steve on that aspect of the lens. > > > It is probably actually a little faster than 2.3. > > Gee, I've never noticed that myself, Steve. However, I haven't used > the lens often enough to notice such subtle qualities as that. When > it comes to packing the ol' kit bag, I tend to switch back-and-forth > between the K 135/2.5 (when I want a fast 135 prime) and the A* > 135/1.8 (when I think I'm going to need a really fast 135 prime). I > guess I have to admit to neglecting the VS1 135/2.3 a bit (as I also > tend to do with the K 135/3.5)... > > By the way, I have an old magazine ad featuring this lens, so I'll > have to scan it and put it on my site. Stay tuned... > > Fred >
