See?? This is why people should _use_ a lens, look at the results, and then decide whether _they_ like it or not. All reputation aside, I like the Tak Bayonet 135/2.5 very much for tight portraits. The wide open 'softness' is perfect for this. I definitely won't let it get the sun in its eye though, it flares, a _lot_. That's when the SMCP 135/2.5 gets the job. ;-)
Don (Who also thinks the Takumar-F 70-210 is pretty darn nice.) > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of J > and K Messervy > Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 7:10 AM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: What's an LX worth? > > > Fair enough, although I've mostly used it for people shots and I've been > very pleased with the results. > > I've started the auction at AUD60 and I'll see what happens. I won't be > heart broken if it doesn't sell. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 10:19 PM > Subject: Re: What's an LX worth? > > > >I sufferers by comparison to the SMC P 135mm f2.5 which is legendary. > > Asahi originally used the Takumar name on their top line of lenses back > > in the M42 mount days. When the K mount lenses were introduced they > > changed the lens line name to Pentax. The Takumar bayonet lenses were > > their bargain line, most were made by third party manufactures and > > lacked the SMC coatings. The Takumar Bayonet 135 f2.5 is probably an > > all right lens, quite a few members of this list have used and liked > > it. But it's not as sharp, since it doesn't have SMC it's flare > > resistance suffers, it's not as well built, and it has those silly > > colored f stop markings< (God what were they thinking when they > did that). > > > > J and K Messervy wrote: > > > >>What's wrong with the Takumar bayonet lens? From using it, I > reckon it's > >>a > >>great piece of glass. > >>----- Original Message ----- > >>From: "Kostas Kavoussanakis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" <[email protected]> > >>Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 8:10 PM > >>Subject: Re: What's an LX worth? > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>>On Wed, 4 Oct 2006, Paul Stenquist wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>If your 135/2.5 is the SmC Takumar screwmount (either > >>>>of the two varieties available), I'd start it at $125. If it's an > >>>>earlier screwmount, I'd start it at $60. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>As it is the Takumar Bayonet, great demand may not be there, I am > >>>afraid. The LX however... :-) > >>> > >>>I suggest that you do a search on eBay for completed listings for > >>>these items to get an idea of prices. > >>> > >>>Good luck! > >>> > >>>Kostas > >>> > >>>-- > >>>PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >>>[email protected] > >>>http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler. > > > > --Albert Einstein > > > > > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > [email protected] > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
