Chrissy,
I thought we were debating a point about a lens, not having an argument. Why is it that when I make valid points in a debate, points that go without response, I then either get criticised for being off topic or in this instance arguing! Given the company the 135mm is in a $20 valuation IS indicative that it isnt a good lens. The 135/2.5 SMC for example goes for between $135 - $165 on ebay. And even the cheap SMC-M 135/2.5 goes for between $45-$65. Saying it is a good lens for $20 is just putting a positive spin on a bad lens.
A.
On 12 Jun 2004, at 06:00, Christian Skofteland wrote:
Tony, why do you like to argue so much? I REALLY, honestly, think that the
Takumar (Bayonet) 135 F2.5 lens is a good lens for $30. My recommendations
to the original post were:
"$50 is too high. I got mine for $20 or $25 I think. I wouldn't pay more
than $30 for it."
That was a fair and honest assessment of the value and a "Don't pay the $50
asking price" recommendation.
Screw the rest of the list, I had the lens in question for quite some time
and used it a lot for portraiture. It's a great, CHEAP portrait lens. It's
my opinion (and that is what is being sought by the original post: an
OPINION). I'm not a sheep, Tony, I don't go along with other people to fit
in. I have experience with something and I can formulate my own opinions,
thank you very much.
If you think I'm arguing with you personally because I get some whacked-out
cheap thrill from it, don't flatter yourself. I'd argue with anyone
(including the almighty, exalted, pillars-of-the-list) that this lens isn't
the dog it's made out to be in actual use. It's a bad rep that it gets from
not being SMC and a "consumer" lens. Build quality is high; higher than
the plastic crap that is pumped out these days. I've been told that it's
soft but I haven't noticed anything in PRINTS. And I recommend not shooting
into the sun. And again: "I wouldn't pay more than $30 for it."
Christian Skofteland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
----- Original Message ----- From: "Antonio Aparicio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 11:35 PM Subject: Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good?
What a load of rubish. You are just being contrary because I said it was a dog. If anyone else where to have said it wasnt a good lens - as many have over the years you would no doubt have agreed and said, yes its only worth $20 or $30 ... given that the questioner is being asked $40 for the lens the only honest reply you should have given was, no its not worth it mate.
