> Is the lens from the subject worth anything as a portrait lens and > general purpose short telephoto prime, or is it useless and I > should look for SMC-K 135/2.5? Some words on this Takumar's > sharpness, colour rendition, contrast?
[I assume that you are referring to the Takumar bayonet 135/"2.5", and not to the M42 SMC Takumar 135/2.5, which is essentially optically the same lens as the SMC K 135/2.5.] I'd say that the SMC K 135/2.5 is a better lens, and I think it is worth getting, if you want a really good fairly fast 135. However, the Tak Bayonet 135/"2.5" is not all that bad, considering its compromises, and is a good lens for the money (considering how cheaply you can sometimes find them). To me, the biggest difference is the SMC versus non-SMC coating difference, which can be seen in the reflections (or lack thereof) in http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/135252.jpg (the SMC K is to the left, while the Tak Bayonet is to the right). Fred
