>
>
>
> Peter J. Alling wrote:
>
> > This shows the hazards of jumping into a thread somewhere in the middle,
> > this discussion was about the letter designations ie A, F, AF, FA, M,
> > (K) on K mount lenses.
>
> The post by John Francis (copied below) named Takumar-A and Takumar-F, as
> tho' they existed.
> It was that question I was addressing.
> If John's question was prompted by what you say above, then it was ME that
> jumped into the middle of a thread and started growing a new branch!
Yes, it was.
That wasn't my question, either: it was a question I was answering,
originally posed by a different poster. Check the ">" indent level.
And Takumar-F lenses, at least, most definitely do exist. I have one
sitting here in front of me as I type; it's the 28-80 /f3.5-f4.5 zoom
often sold as a (cheap) kit lens with the SF-1.
I know all about the SMC Takumar screw-mounts; my first SLR was a
Spotmatic II with the 50mm/f1.4, bought mainly on the strength of
the lens. But I felt that mentioning that variation wouldn't help
someone who was already confused by the K-mount lens terminology.
>
> > Then wandered into the names on lenses Pentax vs
> > Takumar, where unfortunately Pentax decided to use the Takumar name for
> > second rate equipment, (apologies in advance to users of the Takumar
> > f2.5 135 in K mount, as they seem to love it), there was no slight to
> > m42 SMC Takumars or Super Takumars intended.
>
> No offense taken, Peter!
>
> I have yet to expose any film thru MY Takumar {Bayonet} f/2.5 135mm, but
> look forward to it!
> If it's half as good as my model I M42 mount Takumar f/2.5 135mm, it will be
> a quite acceptable lens!
>
> keith whaley
>
> > Keith Whaley wrote:
> >
> >> John Francis wrote:
> >>
> >> >> What about Pentax-A, Pentax-F, Takumar-A and Takumar-F lenses? Where
> >> >> do they fit in?
>
> [...]
>
