They're buried in a box somewhere but a general list is: 3 28-70/3.5-4.5, good optics, poor build. 3 135/2.8s, all different versions, average optics, average build, long minimum focus. 1 28/2.8 excellent build, average optics. 1 200/3.5, large, heavy, good to good+ optics, excellent build, good tripod mount. (Like brand new in box with case, *interested*?) These are from my poor memory so take with a grain or two of salt. ;-)
I'm still not sure about the 135/2.5, but so far it looks excellent and is my only "A" type MF 135mm. The Pentax A135/2.8 is one of their worst IMO. Don > -----Original Message----- > From: Andre Langevin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 5:31 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Matrix metering with Tamron P/KA ? > > > >I've found that this depends on the exact mount. > >I have 2 Tamron Adaptall>P/KA mounts. > >One allows a maximum aperture of F/4, the other allows up > >to at least F/2.5 for my 135/2.5. > >Don't know if one is AD/2 and the other plain Adaptall or > >just why this is. > >Haven't taken the time to find out, the 135/2.5 is the > >only one of 9 Tamron Adaptall lenses that I have that I > >consider a truly "above average" lens. > > > >Don > > What are the 8 ones that are average or below? > > Andre >
