Hi Steven... Yes, the comments regarding the A 135/2.8 are generally negative. Despite those, I picked one up to see for myself. The lens produced nice 5x7 prints at mid apertures (using Fuji Reala), but I'm sure larger prints would've revealed its weaknesses. It's very inexpensive on eBay, between $50 and $75 for ones in good condition. I sold it because I didn't feel that it could outperform my SMC-A 70-210/4 and was cluttering my bag. I'll wait for a outrageous bargain on an 135/1.8.
AFAIK, the k-mount Takumar has uncoated optics and a generally poor build quality. The M 135/3.5 would probably be a good choice. t On 7/31/02 1:51 PM, steven gilson wrote: > Thanks for the suggestion, Lukasz. > > If I can't track down a M 120/2.8 at a reasonable price I will probably go for > either a SMC-M 100/2.8 or 135/3.5. Can somebody tell me about these lenses > when used wide open or close to it? I'm mainly interested in their > performance when focused from 15 feet and farther. > > I really would like something a little longer than 100mm as I already have a > macro in that length and a 35-105/3.5 zoom. I know nobody likes the SMC-A > 135/2.8 or the Tak-A 135/2.5, but the faster SMC 135s are too $$$ and really > bigger than what I want. Was there a Ricoh or Vivitar S1 135/2.8 (non-macro)? > > Steven. - 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 .
