On 9 Mar 2002 at 1:42, Chris Brogden wrote: > On Sat, 9 Mar 2002, tom wrote: > > > > I've got the Super-Takumar 135/3.5! How does it compare with the > > > 135/2.5 for portraits? I've had a 135/3.5 for years, but never > > > used it much. Mostly use my Super Tak 105/2.5. James > > > > The 135/3.5 is a good lens. The Tak 135/2.5 is a very soft mushy > > turd, and therefore can work as a cheap portrait lens for those who > > like a soft lens for that sort of thing. > > I think he was talking about the M42 version of the 135/2.5 (Super Tak > or S.M.C. Tak), not the bayonet 135/2.5. The bayonet lens has a > pretty bad reputation (but the numbers are pretty colours!), while the > screwmount ones have excellent reputations, and are alleged to be even > better than the 135/3.5, which is probably one of the most underrated > Pentax lenses. >
Oops, you're right. tv - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
