Thanks Fred! Don
-----Original message----- From: Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 09:19:53 -0500 To: Shel Belinkoff [email protected] Subject: Re: SMCP 135/2.5 comments? > > I've heard this lens called the "Poor Mans 135/1.8". > > I'm one of those guys that calls it that frequently (and, as a very lucky - > and nowadays quite poor - user of an A* 135/1.8, I can make that claim from > experience - <g>). > > > I've had a couple - three of those lenses, and used an A*135/1.8 a few > > times. The K135/2.5 is a great lens by comparison, especially for the > > money. The size is quite a bit more handy as well. IMO, especially when > > shooting hand held, the K135 is comparable to the A*135/1.8 unless you must > > have the wider aperture. > > This is my experience, as well. The K 135/2.5 goes with me frequently > whenever I think I might use a 135 prime, while the A* 135/1.8 sits in > "protective custody" back at home most of the time (unless I think I might > really need the extra speed), and I honestly don't feel that I'm making a > compromise when making the decision... > > And, as for its "rich man's design", the K 135/2.5 shares the same optical > configuration as the K 200/2.5 and the A* 200/2.8 (the only three Pentax > lenses to share their particular configuration), and I'd say that's "pretty > good company" to be in - <g>. > > Fred >
