Hi,
thanks to all for the quick and accurate responses. Especially Stan for the reference! I remember having seen the site before, but my bookmarking is messy... About the lens, there seems to be no conclusion about the quality, but the general advise is not to spend much money on it, so even if it's only good for fool-proof applications, it's not a bad deal... For me it will only be my second K-mount lens (next to the 50mm f:2.0)... I'll see if I can get it. Groeten, Vic Stan Halpin wrote: > Check http://stans-photography.info/ for a collection of PDML members' > opinions about Pentax lenses. It is badly out of date, does not contain > any info about the FA-J or DA lenses. But it does have quite complete > coverage for earlier lenses. What motivated me to start in the first > place was the huge variety of lenses, and huge reported variation in > quality, in Pentax K and M 135mm. I couldn't track all of the comments > and so started gathering them into a Word file, to be studied at my > leisure... That helped guide my first 135mm purchase. BTW, the Takumar > 135/2.5 has received consistent marks as the poorest of the bunch. > Having said that, even a "bad" Pentax lens is quite usable under proper > conditions. > > Stan > > > On Nov 24, 2006, at 7:44 PM, Vic Mortelmans wrote: > > >>Hi >> >>can someone give a brief comment on this lens? I'm not familiar with >>the >>K-mount line of lenses. Seems something inbetween the >>Super-Multi-Coated >>Takumar (M42 screw) series and the SMC M/A Pentax-series (Bayonet), >>right? But it doesn't mention multi-coating. It's not a cheap >>entry-level lens, is it? (although it's quite fast for this focal >>length). >> >>Groeten, >> >>Vic >> >>-- >>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
