Here's the SMCT compared to an SMCP-M135/3.5 http://www.donsauction.com/pdml/Flare4.jpg
Ick! Don > -----Original Message----- > From: Don Sanderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 9:55 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: SMCT 135/2.5 results > > > No Black Hole here, that's for sure: > > http://www.donsauction.com/pdml/Flare3.jpg > > Don > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Fred [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 8:59 PM > > To: Don Sanderson > > Subject: Re: SMCT 135/2.5 results > > > > > > > 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 > > > > >
