Tony; Do you even read my e-mails? I said it was a good lens for $30 not $20. Furthermore I'd buy another one for $30 if I was so inclined before spending "$135 - $165" on ebay for the K or "$45-$65" for the M. The cost of the lens is a function of "Market value" not quality. The lens in question has a bad (in my OPINION, undeserved) reputation which lowers its market value. Saying I'd pay only $30 for it means that you can EASILY find it for this price on eBay and other places. $50 is too high based on what it sells for in the "real world." Saying I'd pay at most $30 for it does not mean I feel that it is a crappy lens.
The argument we are having is that you seem to have a hard time understanding the points I am making above. Just because the lens is inexpensive and I have a ceiling price that I, personally, would pay for it does not make it a crappy lens. I think it's a fine lens and it's "value" in the current used lens market place is about US$30.00. Chrissy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Antonio Aparicio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2004 6:25 AM Subject: Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good? > 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. >
