This was shot almost directly into the sun with the K135/2.5. I normally use the large metal hood from the Super Tak 200/4, but I forgot it this time and had to use the shorter hood from the SG 85/1.9. The water was full of specular highlights and the wakeboarder's face and body were shaded, so the range was more than a dozen stops. I split the difference in exposure and processing. The round circles are water droplets. There is some flare, as one would expect, but it's minimal for the situation. Paul http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2686468
> > Those who own the SMCP 135/2.5: > > Is flare resistance in the K version better? > > Is focus travel as long? > > You know, I can't really say too much about the flare resistance of the K > 135/2.5 - I've used it as an "indoor informal portrait lens" almost > exclusively, so I've never really put it to any serious flare test much. > > I do know that it seems to be better than the Takumar Bayonet 135/"2.5" - > look at the comparative difference in reflections (or lack thereof at > http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/135's/135252.jpg . > > The focus travel (or throw) does seem to be rather long - it's basically a > rather old-fashioned lens - <g>. For what I use it for (an "indoor > informal portrait lens"), this is not a problem at all. > > Fred > >
