Thanks Doug, I picked up a M135/3.5 and I think I'll keep one of the Taks around too. I was thinking what you just said, keep the softer one for portraits where I can control the light somewhat.
Don > -----Original Message----- > From: Doug Franklin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2004 5:21 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Takumar (Bayonet) 135/2.5 > > > On Fri, 6 Aug 2004 20:51:11 -0500, Don Sanderson wrote: > > > I've used this lens and got what I thought were very good/sharp results. > > Though the common opinion seems to be that it is a terrible > lens Christian > > seems to like it and I've read several other accounts of people > being fond > > of it. > > I suspect that, in a lot of cases, this is because they're comparing it > with the K 135/2.5, which is the next best thing to legendary, like the > K 200/2.5. I've got both the K and the Tak, and the K is very much > superior. But the Tak is no piece of crap. Given the choice, I'd sell > the Tak and keep the K, based on what I shoot, but I might change my > mind if I did mostly portraits. > > TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ > >
