Thanks, Fred, for saving my butt...! The only thing I can conclude is, that the specific lens is a Takumar, and I've heard it's a real dog. You saved me from paying $ 40,- for nothin' :) Thanks for the advice. I've read the thread you meantioned and I'll keep my eyes open for a nice SMC 135/3.5 or a SMC 135/2.5.
Rod. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Fred" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 21:23 Subject: Re: should i buy the smc k 135mm f2.8 > > For use on my K1000 I'd like a short tele and I can buy this one > > (i believe it is a smc) for about $ 40,- > > I don't think that there actually is any SMC "K" 135/2.8 lens, Rod. > There are 135/2.5 and 135/3.5 SMC "K" lenses. (I think that the > first 135/2.8 wan an SMC A lens.) Either of the two SMC "K" 135's > would do a very good job for you. [See the contemporaneous thread > "Re: Candid portraits" for some discussion of these lenses.] At > $40, I'd say it's a fair price for the 135/3.5 (or for the M > 135/3.5) - however, if it's for the 135/2.5, then it's a great > price.
