I agree, Fred, on all counts.
It's not as bad a lens as everyone says. $50 is a bit high. Not that it's a bad lens for $50, but rather, they can usually be gotten for cheaper.
I have one, and I wasn't unhappy with it - until I bought the SMC 2.5 135mm from Shel. A much superior lens, in terms of sharpness and bokeh (I'll be posting several GFM shots taken with the SMC later - I love this lens!).
But, the "bayonet" is only "bad" in comparison to the SMC - on it's own it's a competent performer, IMHO. It usually goes for around $30 or $40 though.
cheers, frank
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
From: Fred <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good? Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 18:06:22 -0400
> is asking $50 for it
> The Takumar 135/2.5 bayonet is a dog - best avoided,
Well, I would tend to disagree with the canine qualities. It's not the best Pentax 135 out there, but I wouldn't exactly call it a dog, either. Still, I do think that $50 might be a bit too high.
Fred
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Premium: Up to 11 personalized e-mail addresses and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
