I know this discussion has pretty much run it's course, but no one has
mentioned the SMC Pentax Soft f:2.2 or f:2.5 (in the newer version).
Selective softening of the details, with a base image that's quite sharp.
However, the fact that it's at it's softest wide open, and doesn't achieve
that "just barely soft" look until f:5.6, it's smallest aperature.
I've used it for portraits as well as "dreamy, moody, romantic and memories"
shots to good effect.
JoMac
on 3/8/02 23:50, tom opined:
> 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.
JoMac, Pentaxian
"Pentax, Quadraphonic, Betamax, Macintosh"
and above the rest.
k t,
s e n
Living life a w o
almost parallel to, r
yet ever so slightly o u t -------> f
-
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 .
