Hi Jos, found your picture of the footballer. Very nice! Certainly the kind of picture the 135 is quite ideal for. Difficult to judge whether the SMC 135/2.5 would be noticibly better than your Takumar 135/2.5. O dear, decisions, decisions (as my mother would say). I have my eye on the SMC 135/2.5, but maybe whgen getting too expensive I'll have to go back to the Takumar.
The zoom fish-eye has distortion along the whole zoom range which I simply forgot or let's just say: overlooked... I don't need the distortion effect, I need the wide view. So the prime would be better for me I feel. What would be a reasonable price? :-) Paul Delcour > From: "josvdh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 19:33:52 +0200 > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: 135/2.5 Pentax or Takumar - what's the difference? > Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Resent-Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 13:33:07 -0400 > > Hi Paul, > In the last pug several pictures are made with the Takumar 135/2.5 bayonet > (including my picture of the little football player) > I think the lens is performing quite well (I had also the Pentax 135/2.5) > and certainly worth 40€. > Note: the word "Pentax"is nowhere on the lens, only " Asahi Optical"and > "Takumar" > > Regards, Jos van der Hijden >
