> > > BTW, I'm surprised that anyone would challenge Aparicio for offering an > > opinion on a lens. Let's try to maintain some balance here. > > On Jun 11, 2004, at 6:06 PM, Fred wrote: > > >>> 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 > > ????? > > Fred
Had me puzzled, too. Just because it was a posting about a lens that doesn't mean it should be treated as an ex cathedra statement. All the quoted post did was to suggest that perhaps Aparicio's opinion might be a little too didactic. Where's the lack of balance in that suggestion? Perhaps this was meant as a followup to a different post; there have been some rather more vehemently-expressed opinions seen elsewhere.
