Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good?
Hey Frank, There is no need for shouting or foul language. If you cant debate a point like and adult, do us all a favour, dont debate it at all. The subject is photography and Pentax lenses and I will stop debating a point when I decide that I dont want to debate it anymore thank you very much. You are not the censor of this list. I notice that you feel you are able to jump on that same dead horse and ride it a little more, so what gives? Compared to the other 135s that are available I still think that it is a bad lens and would not recommend buying it.. Bad resolution all round. Bad colour rendition. Poor 3d rendition. Suffers from flare. Poorly made. Not recomended. Antonio p.s. On 12 Jun 2004, at 05:40, frank theriault wrote: Christ, Antonio, Give it a freaking rest!! You've made your freaking point, do you have to go on and on and on and on? Do you kniow what beating a dead horse is? We know you don't like the lens. We know you used to own one. Enough already. Just because Christain says it's not worth the $50 that whoever it was saw it for, doesn't mean it's a bad lens. It means that because of their reputation (whether deserved or not) and because they're so plentiful, the going price is like $20 or $30, that's what it means. The market value ~can~ be quite independant of it's quality. The Super Tak f1.4 50mm screwmount can usually be picked up for under $50. It's an OUTSTANDING lens (as long as it doesn't have the yellow curse, which can be fixed anyways). If made today, Pentax would have to market it for over $1000, likely much more. Because it's routinely available on eBay for under $50 doesn't mean it's a bad lens. Just that it's supply is more plentiful than the demand. Basic economics. But, really, take a Valium and chill out, dude. You're becoming bothersome... cheers, frank The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: Antonio Aparicio [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good? Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 05:24:45 +0200 Yes, you loved it so much you would not recomend spending more than $20 on it. Contradiction? A. On 12 Jun 2004, at 04:23, Christian Skofteland wrote: I loved it. So there! :-p Christian Skofteland [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ MSN Premium with Virus Guard and Firewall* from McAfee® Security : 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/ premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/ encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good?
Antonio, who wrote: Hey Frank, There is no need for shouting or foul language. If you cant debate a point like and adult, do us all a favour, dont debate it at all. also wrote (to Christian): What a load of rubish. You are just being contrary because I said it was a dog. Antonio, there really isn't anyone picking apart your opinion on the lens. You've said it's a dog, and people nod and acknowledge you think it's a substandard lens. On the other hand, when Christian says it's a great lens but he wouldn't pay more than $30 dollars, he just means it's a good lens that is not physically worth that much (just like one wouldn't pay $30 for a good peanut). You did not show a disagreement with his opinion, but made it personal. Your method of dialogue hasn't left any leeway for discussion, nor does it foster the environment for it. I can understand Frank's frustration, and wasn't nice to witness, because Frank is one of the most pleasant, neutral people on this list. I don't have any quarrel with you, but recommend that sometimes, take a step back before you make yourself feel better by trying to make someone else feel worse. The quarrel is with the photographic conditions, not with the subject in your viewfinder. Cheers, Ryan
Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good?
Ryan, Christian and I differ as to our judgement of the lens. I state my views clearly and leave others to make their own. There is no need for shouting or foul language. If I think someone is talking rubish I will tell them, that is different. There is plenty of room for disagrement and discussion as you yourself have witnessed. Your position in all this however is somewhat unclear, as is your motivation, as you do not bring your own views to the debate. Your method of dialogue seems to involve not stating an opinion yourself but jumping on those who do. Christians arguments did not hold water IMO as I feel you can not say that a lens is a penut (using your analogy) and at the same time say it is a great lens. As to Frank, my experience of him is that he is just another one of the abnoxious individuals on this list, who feel that mobbing is a perfectly legitimate way of behaving, along with Bob S, Bob Blakely, and a few others. I can assure you that I do not feel bad and certainly do not participate in these debates to make anyone else feel so, nor make myself feel better. Finally, you wrote that The quarrel is with the photographic conditions, not with the subject in the viewfinder. Care to elaborate? Antonio On 12 Jun 2004, at 12:07, Ryan Lee wrote: Antonio, who wrote: Hey Frank, There is no need for shouting or foul language. If you cant debate a point like and adult, do us all a favour, dont debate it at all. also wrote (to Christian): What a load of rubish. You are just being contrary because I said it was a dog. Antonio, there really isn't anyone picking apart your opinion on the lens. You've said it's a dog, and people nod and acknowledge you think it's a substandard lens. On the other hand, when Christian says it's a great lens but he wouldn't pay more than $30 dollars, he just means it's a good lens that is not physically worth that much (just like one wouldn't pay $30 for a good peanut). You did not show a disagreement with his opinion, but made it personal. Your method of dialogue hasn't left any leeway for discussion, nor does it foster the environment for it. I can understand Frank's frustration, and wasn't nice to witness, because Frank is one of the most pleasant, neutral people on this list. I don't have any quarrel with you, but recommend that sometimes, take a step back before you make yourself feel better by trying to make someone else feel worse. The quarrel is with the photographic conditions, not with the subject in your viewfinder. Cheers, Ryan
Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good?
Chrissy, I thought we were debating a point about a lens, not having an argument. Why is it that when I make valid points in a debate, points that go without response, I then either get criticised for being off topic or in this instance arguing! Given the company the 135mm is in a $20 valuation IS indicative that it isnt a good lens. The 135/2.5 SMC for example goes for between $135 - $165 on ebay. And even the cheap SMC-M 135/2.5 goes for between $45-$65. Saying it is a good lens for $20 is just putting a positive spin on a bad lens. A. On 12 Jun 2004, at 06:00, Christian Skofteland wrote: Tony, why do you like to argue so much? I REALLY, honestly, think that the Takumar (Bayonet) 135 F2.5 lens is a good lens for $30. My recommendations to the original post were: $50 is too high. I got mine for $20 or $25 I think. I wouldn't pay more than $30 for it. That was a fair and honest assessment of the value and a Don't pay the $50 asking price recommendation. Screw the rest of the list, I had the lens in question for quite some time and used it a lot for portraiture. It's a great, CHEAP portrait lens. It's my opinion (and that is what is being sought by the original post: an OPINION). I'm not a sheep, Tony, I don't go along with other people to fit in. I have experience with something and I can formulate my own opinions, thank you very much. If you think I'm arguing with you personally because I get some whacked-out cheap thrill from it, don't flatter yourself. I'd argue with anyone (including the almighty, exalted, pillars-of-the-list) that this lens isn't the dog it's made out to be in actual use. It's a bad rep that it gets from not being SMC and a consumer lens. Build quality is high; higher than the plastic crap that is pumped out these days. I've been told that it's soft but I haven't noticed anything in PRINTS. And I recommend not shooting into the sun. And again: I wouldn't pay more than $30 for it. Christian Skofteland [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Antonio Aparicio [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 11:35 PM Subject: Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good? What a load of rubish. You are just being contrary because I said it was a dog. If anyone else where to have said it wasnt a good lens - as many have over the years you would no doubt have agreed and said, yes its only worth $20 or $30 ... given that the questioner is being asked $40 for the lens the only honest reply you should have given was, no its not worth it mate.
Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good?
Antonio, Ryan, Christian and I differ as to our judgement of the lens. I state my views clearly and leave others to make their own. There is no need for shouting or foul language. If I think someone is talking rubish I will tell them, that is different. There is plenty of room for disagrement and discussion as you yourself have witnessed. 'Stating your own views and leaving others to make their own' and insulting the integrity of someone else's point of view is different. You will never get someone to say, 'Oh I see where I was wrong' by starting off, 'What a load of rubbish'. It is effectively the difference between discussion and dictation. Your position in all this however is somewhat unclear, as is your motivation, as you do not bring your own views to the debate. Your method of dialogue seems to involve not stating an opinion yourself but jumping on those who do. I haven't got an opinion on this debate as I have never used the aforementioned lens. On the topic of the ways we make our points, and how it nurtures community on the list, I have a very clearly neutral position. I am not jumping on your opinion at all, but the way you choose to enforce it. Furthermore, my position on this issue is incidental, and bringing it up appears to be a defensive reflex- unnecessary considering the last thing on my mind is to start an additional argument. On the other hand, your reply to Jens' post seemed more civil than your response to Christian's, and shows that you can be polite if you choose to be. Perhaps you should take care that in expressing contrary opinions, you still maintain respect for the other person's dignity. Christians arguments did not hold water IMO as I feel you can not say that a lens is a penut (using your analogy) and at the same time say it is a great lens. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough on the analogy. Try to follow me on this, no matter how silly it sounds- The lens can be a peanut, but that doesn't mean it can't be a great peanut. Like, it is cheap, and better tasting than all the peanuts you've eaten, but at the end of a day, it is just a peanut, and you can't expect it to be a cashew, a macadamia or a pistachio. However, for a peanut, it was good. As to Frank, my experience of him is that he is just another one of the abnoxious individuals on this list, who feel that mobbing is a perfectly legitimate way of behaving, along with Bob S, Bob Blakely, and a few others. My experience differs; my views on this are that his post to you reflects more of a frustration with the way you deal with opinions which different from yours, as sometimes it seems you (perhaps unintentionally) create more friction than work towards a mutually agreed upon resolution. I can assure you that I do not feel bad and certainly do not participate in these debates to make anyone else feel so, nor make myself feel better. Which is why I say it is possibly unintentional that you cause other list members to feel frustrated. Knowing this, perhaps you could put in extra effort not to make it so, afterall, many of the members that are involved in this conflict are respected, if not founding members, who have been on the list for years, and through this, have earned the respect of other members. Finally, you wrote that The quarrel is with the photographic conditions, not with the subject in the viewfinder. Care to elaborate? So much for my exit. I was drawing a parallel- Just as in photography you master light and equipment to capture the the subject (instead of manipulating the subject), also in discussion- you balance reason with diplomacy (instead of manipulating opinion) to achieve an outcome. You do not have to be aggressive, to be assertive. Cheers, Ryan On 12 Jun 2004, at 12:07, Ryan Lee wrote: Antonio, who wrote: Hey Frank, There is no need for shouting or foul language. If you cant debate a point like and adult, do us all a favour, dont debate it at all. also wrote (to Christian): What a load of rubish. You are just being contrary because I said it was a dog. Antonio, there really isn't anyone picking apart your opinion on the lens. You've said it's a dog, and people nod and acknowledge you think it's a substandard lens. On the other hand, when Christian says it's a great lens but he wouldn't pay more than $30 dollars, he just means it's a good lens that is not physically worth that much (just like one wouldn't pay $30 for a good peanut). You did not show a disagreement with his opinion, but made it personal. Your method of dialogue hasn't left any leeway for discussion, nor does it foster the environment for it. I can understand Frank's frustration, and wasn't nice to witness, because Frank is one of the most pleasant, neutral people on this list. I don't have any quarrel with you, but recommend that sometimes, take a step back before you make yourself feel better by trying to make someone else
Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good?
Of course. I meant to say the M 135/3.5. On Jun 12, 2004, at 1:56 AM, Jens Bladt wrote: The SMC 2.5/135mm is not an M, it's a K. Jens Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 12. juni 2004 01:50 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good? You can get an M 135/2.5 for $60 or so. It's far superior to the Takumar lens. BTW, I'm surprised that anyone would challenge Aparicio for offering an opinion on a lens. Let's try to maintain some balance here. On Jun 11, 2004, at 6:06 PM, Fred wrote: is asking $50 for it The Takumar 135/2.5 bayonet is a dog - best avoided, Well, I would tend to disagree with the canine qualities. It's not the best Pentax 135 out there, but I wouldn't exactly call it a dog, either. Still, I do think that $50 might be a bit too high. Fred
Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good?
Tony; Do you even read my e-mails? I said it was a good lens for $30 not $20. Furthermore I'd buy another one for $30 if I was so inclined before spending $135 - $165 on ebay for the K or $45-$65 for the M. The cost of the lens is a function of Market value not quality. The lens in question has a bad (in my OPINION, undeserved) reputation which lowers its market value. Saying I'd pay only $30 for it means that you can EASILY find it for this price on eBay and other places. $50 is too high based on what it sells for in the real world. Saying I'd pay at most $30 for it does not mean I feel that it is a crappy lens. The argument we are having is that you seem to have a hard time understanding the points I am making above. Just because the lens is inexpensive and I have a ceiling price that I, personally, would pay for it does not make it a crappy lens. I think it's a fine lens and it's value in the current used lens market place is about US$30.00. Chrissy - Original Message - From: Antonio Aparicio [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2004 6:25 AM Subject: Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good? Chrissy, I thought we were debating a point about a lens, not having an argument. Why is it that when I make valid points in a debate, points that go without response, I then either get criticised for being off topic or in this instance arguing! Given the company the 135mm is in a $20 valuation IS indicative that it isnt a good lens. The 135/2.5 SMC for example goes for between $135 - $165 on ebay. And even the cheap SMC-M 135/2.5 goes for between $45-$65. Saying it is a good lens for $20 is just putting a positive spin on a bad lens. A.
Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good?
Wow, this discussion sure took off. Those of you who gave your opinion of the lens in question based on your experience, thank you. Those who dislike the lens will probably be happy to hear I've decided not to buy it, instead I found a SMC Pentax-M 135/3.5 cheaper than the Takumar was. I really wanted a Pentax-A lens, but the SMC A 135/2.8 doesn't have very nice reviews on Stan's page, plus it seems to be expensive... which is why I was going to consider the non-SMC lens as a cheap alternative. Now if I had a few more lenses, I could almost do without my Sears 80-200/4. ;) A Pentax-A 100/2.8 and perhaps the Pentax-A 200/4 would be nice. Also, the -A 70-210/4 and -A 35-70 (3.5-4.5) look like nice lenses. Dang, I think I'm catching Pentax disease. __ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good?
Jon M wrote: Wow, this discussion sure took off. Those of you who gave your opinion of the lens in question based on your experience, thank you. Those who dislike the lens will probably be happy to hear I've decided not to buy it, instead I found a SMC Pentax-M 135/3.5 cheaper than the Takumar was. I really wanted a Pentax-A lens, but the SMC A 135/2.8 doesn't have very nice reviews on Stan's page, plus it seems to be expensive... which is why I was going to consider the non-SMC lens as a cheap alternative. Now if I had a few more lenses, I could almost do without my Sears 80-200/4. ;) A Pentax-A 100/2.8 and perhaps the Pentax-A 200/4 would be nice. Also, the -A 70-210/4 and -A 35-70 (3.5-4.5) look like nice lenses. Dang, I think I'm catching Pentax disease. Abandon all hope now, it's much easier... __ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good?
On Jun 12, 2004, at 3:22 PM, Jon M wrote: instead I found a SMC Pentax-M 135/3.5 cheaper than the Takumar was. Congratulations. That's a very sharp and contrasty lens. Probably one of the best bargains in Pentax land. Ditto that a 200/4 you want. The M 200/4 is also very good, although it doesn't have the auto exposure capability of the A version. Paul
Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good?
Jon, Contgratulations on your new lens. Let us know how you get on with it. I owned the SMC-M 135/3,5 briefly too and didnt like it much either, but perhaps I had a dud example. I own the SMCK 135/3.5 and the 135/2.5 and they are both excellent if ever you feel like venturing further along the line. Antonio On 12 Jun 2004, at 21:22, Jon M wrote: Wow, this discussion sure took off. Those of you who gave your opinion of the lens in question based on your experience, thank you. Those who dislike the lens will probably be happy to hear I've decided not to buy it, instead I found a SMC Pentax-M 135/3.5 cheaper than the Takumar was. I really wanted a Pentax-A lens, but the SMC A 135/2.8 doesn't have very nice reviews on Stan's page, plus it seems to be expensive... which is why I was going to consider the non-SMC lens as a cheap alternative. Now if I had a few more lenses, I could almost do without my Sears 80-200/4. ;) A Pentax-A 100/2.8 and perhaps the Pentax-A 200/4 would be nice. Also, the -A 70-210/4 and -A 35-70 (3.5-4.5) look like nice lenses. Dang, I think I'm catching Pentax disease. __ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good?
Antonio Aparicio wrote: The Takumar 135/2.5 bayonet is a dog - best avoided, A. By whose word? Are you testifying directly and personally that it's not a worthy lens? How do you know? Have you personally tested one? Or are you parroting someone else's opinion? keith whaley On 11 Jun 2004, at 23:37, Jon M wrote: http://kmp.bdimitrov.de/lenses/primes/_non-SMC/tak_135f2.5.html A local shop has one in his inventory, and is asking $50 for it. There are no reviews of it on Stan's page. I was wondering if any of y'all have any experience with this lens, or any insight as to whether it'd be a decent addition to my small but growing collection of K-mount goodies? Thanks. -Jon Myers.
Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good?
is asking $50 for it The Takumar 135/2.5 bayonet is a dog - best avoided, Well, I would tend to disagree with the canine qualities. It's not the best Pentax 135 out there, but I wouldn't exactly call it a dog, either. Still, I do think that $50 might be a bit too high. Fred
Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good?
Aha, the opinion police are back! I've owned it, it was a dog, I got rid of it. My opinion. Antonio On 11 Jun 2004, at 23:58, Keith Whaley wrote: Antonio Aparicio wrote: The Takumar 135/2.5 bayonet is a dog - best avoided, A. By whose word? Are you testifying directly and personally that it's not a worthy lens? How do you know? Have you personally tested one? Or are you parroting someone else's opinion? keith whaley On 11 Jun 2004, at 23:37, Jon M wrote: http://kmp.bdimitrov.de/lenses/primes/_non-SMC/tak_135f2.5.html A local shop has one in his inventory, and is asking $50 for it. There are no reviews of it on Stan's page. I was wondering if any of y'all have any experience with this lens, or any insight as to whether it'd be a decent addition to my small but growing collection of K-mount goodies? Thanks. -Jon Myers.
Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good?
Okay! Fair enough. I accept your evaluation. When I test mine, I'll report back, and we can compare the results... keith whaley Antonio Aparicio wrote: Aha, the opinion police are back! I've owned it, it was a dog, I got rid of it. My opinion. Antonio On 11 Jun 2004, at 23:58, Keith Whaley wrote: Antonio Aparicio wrote: The Takumar 135/2.5 bayonet is a dog - best avoided, A. By whose word? Are you testifying directly and personally that it's not a worthy lens? How do you know? Have you personally tested one? Or are you parroting someone else's opinion? keith whaley [...]
Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good?
I agree, Fred, on all counts. It's not as bad a lens as everyone says. $50 is a bit high. Not that it's a bad lens for $50, but rather, they can usually be gotten for cheaper. I have one, and I wasn't unhappy with it - until I bought the SMC 2.5 135mm from Shel. A much superior lens, in terms of sharpness and bokeh (I'll be posting several GFM shots taken with the SMC later - I love this lens!). But, the bayonet is only bad in comparison to the SMC - on it's own it's a competent performer, IMHO. It usually goes for around $30 or $40 though. cheers, frank The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good? Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 18:06:22 -0400 is asking $50 for it The Takumar 135/2.5 bayonet is a dog - best avoided, Well, I would tend to disagree with the canine qualities. It's not the best Pentax 135 out there, but I wouldn't exactly call it a dog, either. Still, I do think that $50 might be a bit too high. Fred _ MSN Premium: Up to 11 personalized e-mail addresses and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good?
You can get an M 135/2.5 for $60 or so. It's far superior to the Takumar lens. BTW, I'm surprised that anyone would challenge Aparicio for offering an opinion on a lens. Let's try to maintain some balance here. On Jun 11, 2004, at 6:06 PM, Fred wrote: is asking $50 for it The Takumar 135/2.5 bayonet is a dog - best avoided, Well, I would tend to disagree with the canine qualities. It's not the best Pentax 135 out there, but I wouldn't exactly call it a dog, either. Still, I do think that $50 might be a bit too high. Fred
Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good?
Hi Frank, I agree with your evaluation of the SMC 135/2.5. The Takumar may be acceptable, but there are so many superior lenses available for approximately the same price that it doesn't appear to be a good buy. Both the SMC Pentax 135/3.5 and the M version of the same lens can be had for only a few dollars more. Yet they're much better. In fact, the M seems as sharp as the SMC 135/2.5, although it is, of course, not as fast. I shot this with the SMC Pentax 135/2.5 a few hours ago: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2436353size=lg Paul On Jun 11, 2004, at 6:54 PM, frank theriault wrote: I agree, Fred, on all counts. It's not as bad a lens as everyone says. $50 is a bit high. Not that it's a bad lens for $50, but rather, they can usually be gotten for cheaper. I have one, and I wasn't unhappy with it - until I bought the SMC 2.5 135mm from Shel. A much superior lens, in terms of sharpness and bokeh (I'll be posting several GFM shots taken with the SMC later - I love this lens!). But, the bayonet is only bad in comparison to the SMC - on it's own it's a competent performer, IMHO. It usually goes for around $30 or $40 though. cheers, frank The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good? Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 18:06:22 -0400 is asking $50 for it The Takumar 135/2.5 bayonet is a dog - best avoided, Well, I would tend to disagree with the canine qualities. It's not the best Pentax 135 out there, but I wouldn't exactly call it a dog, either. Still, I do think that $50 might be a bit too high. Fred _ MSN Premium: Up to 11 personalized e-mail addresses and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/ premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/ encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree, Fred, on all counts. It's not as bad a lens as everyone says. $50 is a bit high. Not that it's a bad lens for $50, but rather, they can usually be gotten for cheaper. I have one, and I wasn't unhappy with it - until I bought the SMC 2.5 135mm from Shel. A much superior lens, in terms of sharpness and bokeh (I'll be posting several GFM shots taken with the SMC later - I love this lens!). I can vouch for the SMC 135 2.5 (58mm filter) also. Its a great lens, great bokeh, color, and sharpness. The only thing I don't like is the hood that is supposed to be for this lens. It seems really hard to put on. Its supposed to clip on to the interior lens rings, but just when you think its on right, its cockeyed. But, the bayonet is only bad in comparison to the SMC - on it's own it's a competent performer, IMHO. It usually goes for around $30 or $40 though. cheers, frank The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good? Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 18:06:22 -0400 is asking $50 for it The Takumar 135/2.5 bayonet is a dog - best avoided, Well, I would tend to disagree with the canine qualities. It's not the best Pentax 135 out there, but I wouldn't exactly call it a dog, either. Still, I do think that $50 might be a bit too high. Fred _ MSN Premium: Up to 11 personalized e-mail addresses and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good?
BTW, I'm surprised that anyone would challenge Aparicio for offering an opinion on a lens. Let's try to maintain some balance here. On Jun 11, 2004, at 6:06 PM, Fred wrote: is asking $50 for it The Takumar 135/2.5 bayonet is a dog - best avoided, Well, I would tend to disagree with the canine qualities. It's not the best Pentax 135 out there, but I wouldn't exactly call it a dog, either. Still, I do think that $50 might be a bit too high. Fred ? Fred
Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good?
Get the lens hood for the SMC Tak M42. It fits perfectly and except for a slight difference in finish seems to match this lens much better than the plastic clip on that was originally supplied. Gonz wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree, Fred, on all counts. It's not as bad a lens as everyone says. $50 is a bit high. Not that it's a bad lens for $50, but rather, they can usually be gotten for cheaper. I have one, and I wasn't unhappy with it - until I bought the SMC 2.5 135mm from Shel. A much superior lens, in terms of sharpness and bokeh (I'll be posting several GFM shots taken with the SMC later - I love this lens!). I can vouch for the SMC 135 2.5 (58mm filter) also. Its a great lens, great bokeh, color, and sharpness. The only thing I don't like is the hood that is supposed to be for this lens. It seems really hard to put on. Its supposed to clip on to the interior lens rings, but just when you think its on right, its cockeyed. But, the bayonet is only bad in comparison to the SMC - on it's own it's a competent performer, IMHO. It usually goes for around $30 or $40 though. cheers, frank The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good? Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 18:06:22 -0400 is asking $50 for it The Takumar 135/2.5 bayonet is a dog - best avoided, Well, I would tend to disagree with the canine qualities. It's not the best Pentax 135 out there, but I wouldn't exactly call it a dog, either. Still, I do think that $50 might be a bit too high. Fred _ MSN Premium: Up to 11 personalized e-mail addresses and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good?
Yet another reply gets eaten by the list... Attempt #2, here goes. What about SMC Pentax-M f3.5 vs this non-SMC f2.5? I do want a fairly fast lens. I have a 50mm f2 and love it. Anyway, this particular Takumar 135/2.5 seems to include a UV filter and Pentax front lens cap. I'm tempted to offer $40 for it if he throws in a rear lens cap as well. A similar lens in excellent condition is on sale at KEH for $45, no caps. I haven't seen a SMC f2.5 (that I've noticed, anyway), only the Pentax-A f2.8 which I want, but is expensive, and the f3.5 versions. __ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good?
$50 is too high. I got mine for $20 or $25 I think. I wouldn't pay more than $30 for it. Personally, I loved it. Some people say it's soft. I couldn't tell with largish prints. It isn't multicoated, so don't shoot into the sun. Otherwise, I thought it was a fantastic portrait lens. I sold mine when I bought the *ist D, and it's probably my only non-A lens that I regret letting go Christian Skofteland [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Jon M [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 5:37 PM Subject: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good? http://kmp.bdimitrov.de/lenses/primes/_non-SMC/tak_135f2.5.html A local shop has one in his inventory, and is asking $50 for it. There are no reviews of it on Stan's page. I was wondering if any of y'all have any experience with this lens, or any insight as to whether it'd be a decent addition to my small but growing collection of K-mount goodies? Thanks. -Jon Myers. __ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good?
I loved it. So there! :-p Christian Skofteland [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Antonio Aparicio [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 6:22 PM Subject: Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good? Aha, the opinion police are back! I've owned it, it was a dog, I got rid of it. My opinion. Antonio
Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good?
I agree, not worth $50 but not the dog it's made out to be. Definitely not a paperweight. I loved mine. Christian Skofteland [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Peter J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 5:49 PM Subject: Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good? $50.00 is too much to spend on a paperweight. Well I've over stated the case. It's not a great lens to some people it might not even be considered a good lens. I should think you could get it for less.
Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good?
Jon, I have owned the Takumar 135/2.5 once in the past. I bought one new off the shelf in 1982, paid about $80 in 1982 dollars for it. I was so disappointed in it's performance that I sold all my Pentax equipment a few months later. ( I was pressured somewhat in this by my two best friends who swore by Minolta and promised I could borrow any of their substantial collections of glass. ) The lens just wasn't sharp. From what I now know it would probably make a fine portrait lens, but I bought it for outdoor action photography. The f2.5 was nice, I got good fast shutter speeds. But I lost too much quality, it was just plain crippled by the lack of SMC. By all means buy the lens if you want it, it is better than no 135mm lens at all. Just be aware of it's foibles. I'd offer the camera store the $40 for it, use it for a while to see if you like the focal length. Then I'd go hunting for the M 135/3.5 or the K 135/2.5 and be prepared to shell out a few more dollars for the higher quality. My $.02 worth. Mark Gosdin Who caught a bargain on a K 135/3.5 and finds that it is more than good enough... Jon M wrote: Yet another reply gets eaten by the list... Attempt #2, here goes. What about SMC Pentax-M f3.5 vs this non-SMC f2.5? I do want a fairly fast lens. I have a 50mm f2 and love it. Anyway, this particular Takumar 135/2.5 seems to include a UV filter and Pentax front lens cap. I'm tempted to offer $40 for it if he throws in a rear lens cap as well. A similar lens in excellent condition is on sale at KEH for $45, no caps. I haven't seen a SMC f2.5 (that I've noticed, anyway), only the Pentax-A f2.8 which I want, but is expensive, and the f3.5 versions.
Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good?
BTW, I'm surprised that anyone would challenge Aparicio for offering an opinion on a lens. Let's try to maintain some balance here. On Jun 11, 2004, at 6:06 PM, Fred wrote: is asking $50 for it The Takumar 135/2.5 bayonet is a dog - best avoided, Well, I would tend to disagree with the canine qualities. It's not the best Pentax 135 out there, but I wouldn't exactly call it a dog, either. Still, I do think that $50 might be a bit too high. Fred ? Fred Had me puzzled, too. Just because it was a posting about a lens that doesn't mean it should be treated as an ex cathedra statement. All the quoted post did was to suggest that perhaps Aparicio's opinion might be a little too didactic. Where's the lack of balance in that suggestion? Perhaps this was meant as a followup to a different post; there have been some rather more vehemently-expressed opinions seen elsewhere.
Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good?
What a load of rubish. You are just being contrary because I said it was a dog. If anyone else where to have said it wasnt a good lens - as many have over the years you would no doubt have agreed and said, yes its only worth $20 or $30 ... given that the questioner is being asked $40 for the lens the only honest reply you should have given was, no its not worth it mate. On 12 Jun 2004, at 05:35, Christian Skofteland wrote: - Original Message - From: Antonio Aparicio [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yes, you loved it so much you would not recomend spending more than $20 on it. Contradiction? Nope. It was worth every penny I spent on it. Best bang for the buck. HIGHLY recommended as a ~$30 lens. And I believe I said not to pay more than $30 (re-reading posts...) yep, that's what I said. Christian Skofteland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good?
Christ, Antonio, Give it a freaking rest!! You've made your freaking point, do you have to go on and on and on and on? Do you kniow what beating a dead horse is? We know you don't like the lens. We know you used to own one. Enough already. Just because Christain says it's not worth the $50 that whoever it was saw it for, doesn't mean it's a bad lens. It means that because of their reputation (whether deserved or not) and because they're so plentiful, the going price is like $20 or $30, that's what it means. The market value ~can~ be quite independant of it's quality. The Super Tak f1.4 50mm screwmount can usually be picked up for under $50. It's an OUTSTANDING lens (as long as it doesn't have the yellow curse, which can be fixed anyways). If made today, Pentax would have to market it for over $1000, likely much more. Because it's routinely available on eBay for under $50 doesn't mean it's a bad lens. Just that it's supply is more plentiful than the demand. Basic economics. But, really, take a Valium and chill out, dude. You're becoming bothersome... cheers, frank The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: Antonio Aparicio [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good? Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 05:24:45 +0200 Yes, you loved it so much you would not recomend spending more than $20 on it. Contradiction? A. On 12 Jun 2004, at 04:23, Christian Skofteland wrote: I loved it. So there! :-p Christian Skofteland [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ MSN Premium with Virus Guard and Firewall* from McAfee® Security : 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good?
Tony, why do you like to argue so much? I REALLY, honestly, think that the Takumar (Bayonet) 135 F2.5 lens is a good lens for $30. My recommendations to the original post were: $50 is too high. I got mine for $20 or $25 I think. I wouldn't pay more than $30 for it. That was a fair and honest assessment of the value and a Don't pay the $50 asking price recommendation. Screw the rest of the list, I had the lens in question for quite some time and used it a lot for portraiture. It's a great, CHEAP portrait lens. It's my opinion (and that is what is being sought by the original post: an OPINION). I'm not a sheep, Tony, I don't go along with other people to fit in. I have experience with something and I can formulate my own opinions, thank you very much. If you think I'm arguing with you personally because I get some whacked-out cheap thrill from it, don't flatter yourself. I'd argue with anyone (including the almighty, exalted, pillars-of-the-list) that this lens isn't the dog it's made out to be in actual use. It's a bad rep that it gets from not being SMC and a consumer lens. Build quality is high; higher than the plastic crap that is pumped out these days. I've been told that it's soft but I haven't noticed anything in PRINTS. And I recommend not shooting into the sun. And again: I wouldn't pay more than $30 for it. Christian Skofteland [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Antonio Aparicio [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 11:35 PM Subject: Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good? What a load of rubish. You are just being contrary because I said it was a dog. If anyone else where to have said it wasnt a good lens - as many have over the years you would no doubt have agreed and said, yes its only worth $20 or $30 ... given that the questioner is being asked $40 for the lens the only honest reply you should have given was, no its not worth it mate.
RE: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good?
The SMC 2.5/135mm is not an M, it's a K. Jens Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 12. juni 2004 01:50 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good? You can get an M 135/2.5 for $60 or so. It's far superior to the Takumar lens. BTW, I'm surprised that anyone would challenge Aparicio for offering an opinion on a lens. Let's try to maintain some balance here. On Jun 11, 2004, at 6:06 PM, Fred wrote: is asking $50 for it The Takumar 135/2.5 bayonet is a dog - best avoided, Well, I would tend to disagree with the canine qualities. It's not the best Pentax 135 out there, but I wouldn't exactly call it a dog, either. Still, I do think that $50 might be a bit too high. Fred
