If you'll pardon my differentiation... (see below:)
Stan Halpin wrote:
>
> on 9/09/03 8:04 AM, Paul Delcour at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Or isn't there any? Been browsing the internet for hours trying to sort out
> > my lens wishes and sometimes the finds our confusing. Different names for
> > the same lenses. Because they were produced for different markets?
> >
> > The 135/2.5 seems to get very good marks, but is this for the Pentax or the
> > Takumar?
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > :-)
> >
> > Paul Delcour
> >
> >
> The Pentax SMC 135/2.5 is #1 or #2 on the list of Pentax quality 135mm
> lenses. Others at the top of the list by reputation are A* 135/1.8 and SMC-M
> 135/3.5.
The Pentax SMC 135/2.5 and the SMC Takumar 135/2.5 design (catalog
#43812) which immediately preceded it are identical lenses, except for
the bayonet mount on the Pentax version.
> The Takumar 135/2.5 is by far at the bottom of the list of all Pentax 135mm
> lenses.
Your choice of words would lead one to believe there's only one "Takumar
135/2.5," which you of all people know is not true.
Do you then mean that all Takumars of the 135mm f/2.5 specification are
poor ("...by far at the bottom...") lenses?
Looking at what resolution figures are available seem to indicate otherwise.
Why do you judge the 135mm f/2.5 Takumars to be of inferior quality?
keith whaley
> It is worth having and using (how can you go too wrong with a $20
> lens - easy to get your money's worth). The results will not be sharp, you
> will have extreme flare problems with any light source in front of the
> camera, but sometimes soft washed-out images make for great portraits!
>
> See http://home.concentric.net/~smhalpin for collected wisdom on this and
> other Pentax lenses.
>
> stan
