Sorry Shel, Poorly written response on my part, in an attempt at
brevity, I managed to imply the opposite of my point. From what I've
read the K stands up quite well to the FA. In my experience it is
certainly sharper than any zoom I own. The only reason I don't use my
copy more often is that zooms are so damned convenient, and I seldom
need the ultimate in sharpness or speed.
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Don't be so sure about that. The SMCP (K)135/2.5 [Not the Takumar K
135/2.5 that G was futzing with] is a mighty fine lens, and it wouldn't
surprise me in the least that it will compare favorably with the FA135,
although I would think that, being a newer design, the FA would be expected
to shine.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: P. J. Alling
Oooh, bad comparison, of course the FA135 will come out on top. The
K135 f2.5. is a different beast altogether.
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
I have the FA135; I haven't noticed anything specific in terms of
blooming problems, using it with the DS. Can you post a couple of
example photos? I'm curious to know what you are seeing.
I did some casual comparison tests, comparing the FA135/2.8 against
the Takumar K-bayonet 135/2.5 ... see
http://homepage.mac.com/godders/135cmp/ . At that time, I also took
shots for comparison against the Pentax A70-210/4 Macro set to 135mm.
It was the clear winner on sharpness and lack of flare against either
of those.
I'd be interested to know how your K135/2.5 compares.
--
A man's only as old as the woman he feels.
--Groucho Marx
