Thanks. I'll make it a goal to trade up. keith
"J. C. O'Connell" wrote: > > I havent done any head to head scientific tests between > the 2 versions, but it is highly unlikely > PENTAX would have made the 2nd (newer) one larger, > heavier, & costlier to produce with the extra element > if there werent some gains in image quality. I > havent used the first one in about 10 yrs, ever > since I learned of and got the second one. > A wild guess might be better perfromance wide open??? > JCO > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Keith Whaley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 7:13 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: SMCT 135/2.5 > > > > > > Thanks, J.C. > > The unit I have must be the older version, as it's 80mm long. > > Perhaps I ought to put it on eBay and keep my eyes open for the > > later version. > > Well, vise versa, of course! > > It is SMC. > > Is the 5 element design a mediochre performer? (It's relatively new to > > me, and I haven't used it much at all.) > > > > Every time I've read a performance report about the 135 2.5, it was > > praiseworthy, and I doubt everyone who commented had the newer version. > > > > Perhaps the difference is subtle? > > > > keith whaley
