Well I haven't bought one used, but I remember I paid $320 for one new in '81. OK, ok, I admit it, I am a wise guy.
More seriously, as I read your posts on the 75/2.8, I keep thinking, "That is the perfect lens for 6x7, as it is the equivalent of a 35/1.4 on 35mm". Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto ---------------------------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: Aaron Reynolds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 7:52 AM Subject: Re: M35/f2.0 (Re: Re[2]: OT: Oh, I get it...) > On Monday, March 11, 2002, at 06:52 PM, T Rittenhouse wrote: > > > > I liked the M35.2.0. On the MX it was perfect for my type of shooting, > > hand > > held PJ style stuff mostly. I am not the fanatic that many on the list > > seem > > to be, if I needed better quality I used a Rollei, or a Super Technika > > both > > of which got scared if they weren't on a tripod. > > Sounds like the lens I'm looking for. I've always liked 35mm as a focal > length, and for years now I've been using this lovely Super Takumar 35mm > f2.0, but it's freakin' huge. I'm quite fond of that new 75mm for 67, > and I use it a lot more than I use my Super Tak, and my bet is it's > because the 75mm is physically quite small for a 67 lens. If I had an > equivalently small 35mm lens for my 35 gear, I'd probably leave it on > the camera all the time. > > So...let me guess...it's pricey, used, isn't it? > > -Aaron > - > 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 . - 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 .
