He said Thanks Boris, maybe I'm jumping to conclusions, but that's what
Boris had, and I have both the SMC Tak and the SMC Pentax version of
this lens and haven't seen anything to be disappointed about by either
of them.
keithw wrote:
P. J. Alling wrote:
The Takumar Bayonet is not know for being a stellar performer. Some
like it but the general consensus is that it's a dog.
He didn't say he was using a Bayo Takumar.
He said "Takumar 135 2.5." I interpreted that to mean the
Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 1:2.5/135 like I have. M42 mount, and
excellent glass... Performs very well for me...
Maybe I missed where he said that?
keith whaley
Some might attribute this to a certain amount of snobbery, but I've
learned to believe in the wisdom
of the list, in most cases.
Michael Spivak wrote:
In continue of the previous photo, that was taken with the SMC M 35 MM
, here are some more :-)
(i wish i'd open the diaphragm some more to make the B/G not to be
that sharp)
http://mishka.site.co.il/gallery/albums/August08_TelAviv/94510028_G.jpg
Here is one with Takumar 135 2.5
http://mishka.site.co.il/gallery/albums/August08_TelAviv/94510015_G.jpg
Personaly, i'm knida disappointed from the quality of that takumar...
any oppinion ?
Michael
PS: many thanks to Boris (again) ;-)
--
When you're worried or in doubt,
Run in circles, (scream and shout).
