Fred wrote: > > > 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
That's a good test, Fred. Never entered my mind, but to do a side-by-side and look for reflections now seems quite simple and a logical test for flare resistance!! <smile> Isn't that always the way? keith whaley
