On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 12:34:10PM -0400, Bruce Walker wrote: > On 11-08-31 11:30 AM, Darren Addy wrote: > >On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Larry Colen<[email protected]> wrote: > >>A 135/1.8 would make me very happy for doing band photography. If it also > >>did macro.... Considering the state of my finances, I'm very glad that > >>such a beast doesn't currently exist. > >If you haven't already done so, I highly recommend you try the S-M-C > >Takumar 135mm f2.5. NICE lens. > >(Yes, I know that f/2.5 ? f/1.8) > > Thing is, 135/2.5 is within a hair's width of the DA* 50-135/2.8 at > 135mm. While 135/1.8 *might* be worth buying and carrying > separately, I'm quite happy using my existing DA* 50-135 racked-out > so 2.5 wouldn't get me anything notable. Sure it's heavy, but the > K20D already gives me wrist-ache, so I barely notice the additional > strain.
FWIW, the old A* 135/f1.8 weighs 100g more than the DA* 50-135/f2.8, and that's without weather sealing or any autofocus mechanism. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
