Of course. I meant to say the M 135/3.5. On Jun 12, 2004, at 1:56 AM, Jens Bladt wrote:
The SMC 2.5/135mm is not an "M", it's a "K". Jens
Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
-----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 12. juni 2004 01:50 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good?
You can get an M 135/2.5 for $60 or so. It's far superior to the Takumar lens. 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
