Re: for the curious ... FA135/2.8 vs Takumar 135/2.5 comparison
Always possible. I didn't use a magnifier, I was focusing on the features in the center of the image. Godfrey On Mar 18, 2005, at 6:28 PM, David Nelson wrote: Good work for doing the test - I love seeing this sort of thing... one thing I'll point out though is that it appears that focus wasn't equal in the two tests. Take a look at the balcony rails second from the back and you'll see the tak is sharper. The left-foreground bare plane tree branches are clearly sharper in the FA, but compare the light-blue windows directly behind them... the tak appears to be focused closer to infinity than the FA. Cheers, David Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: Thought it might be fun to pit the brand-new $300+ lens against the single coated Takumar version which cost me $27... http://homepage.mac.com/godders/135cmp/ enjoy, Godfrey
Re: for the curious ... FA135/2.8 vs Takumar 135/2.5 comparison
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: Love to do it sometime, but this next couple of weeks is not going to be the time. Don't do it Godfrey, you will *really* want the K135/2.5. With a passion. Kostas
Re: for the curious ... FA135/2.8 vs Takumar 135/2.5 comparison
Hi, Do you think the K135/2.5 is a better lens than the FA135/2.8? In what way? Have you compared them? Shel [Original Message] From: Kostas Kavoussanakis On Thu, 17 Mar 2005, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: Love to do it sometime, but this next couple of weeks is not going to be the time. Don't do it Godfrey, you will *really* want the K135/2.5. With a passion. Kostas
Re: for the curious ... FA135/2.8 vs Takumar 135/2.5 comparison
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Do you think the K135/2.5 is a better lens than the FA135/2.8? In what way? Have you compared them? It's fetish. K lenses just have something. Plus Godfrey is not afraid of a little overlap in a focal length :-) He also does not mind MF. I read him rave about the M85/2 (which I also have) and thought this guy must try the K135/2. Next thing I know, the proposal flies on the list :-) Kostas
Re: for the curious ... FA135/2.8 vs Takumar 135/2.5 comparison
It's definitely prettier :-) Paul On Mar 18, 2005, at 5:30 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Hi, Do you think the K135/2.5 is a better lens than the FA135/2.8? In what way? Have you compared them? Shel [Original Message] From: Kostas Kavoussanakis On Thu, 17 Mar 2005, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: Love to do it sometime, but this next couple of weeks is not going to be the time. Don't do it Godfrey, you will *really* want the K135/2.5. With a passion. Kostas
Re: for the curious ... FA135/2.8 vs Takumar 135/2.5 comparison
SMC 135/2.5 has excellent resolution stopped down beyond f/4 but despite (or maybe due to) that it displays visible chromatic aberrations. Perhaps these will go away from the smaller format, I haven't done any measurements. No experience with FA 135/2.8. Just remember the K only focuses down to 1.5 m and is quite heavy (650g). Oh yes, and it's a joy just to hold it. Servus, Alin Shel wrote: SB Do you think the K135/2.5 is a better lens than the FA135/2.8? In what SB way? Have you compared them?
Re: for the curious ... FA135/2.8 vs Takumar 135/2.5 comparison
On Mar 18, 2005, at 2:42 AM, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: Do you think the K135/2.5 is a better lens than the FA135/2.8? In what way? Have you compared them? It's fetish. K lenses just have something. Plus Godfrey is not afraid of a little overlap in a focal length :-) He also does not mind MF. I read him rave about the M85/2 (which I also have) and thought this guy must try the K135/2.5. Next thing I know, the proposal flies on the list :-) lol ... I've already bought way too many Pentax lenses. Godfrey
Re: for the curious ... FA135/2.8 vs Takumar 135/2.5 comparison
It's slightly faster. (Ok it's reputed to be sharper as well, but I don't have both, only the K, which inspires confidence on an lx, it would also make a formidable club). Paul Stenquist wrote: It's definitely prettier :-) Paul On Mar 18, 2005, at 5:30 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Hi, Do you think the K135/2.5 is a better lens than the FA135/2.8? In what way? Have you compared them? Shel [Original Message] From: Kostas Kavoussanakis On Thu, 17 Mar 2005, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: Love to do it sometime, but this next couple of weeks is not going to be the time. Don't do it Godfrey, you will *really* want the K135/2.5. With a passion. Kostas -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
Re: for the curious ... FA135/2.8 vs Takumar 135/2.5 comparison
- Original Message - From: Godfrey DiGiorgi Subject: Re: for the curious ... FA135/2.8 vs Takumar 135/2.5 comparison lol ... I've already bought way too many Pentax lenses. Your point? William Robb
Re: for the curious ... FA135/2.8 vs Takumar 135/2.5 comparison
Good work for doing the test - I love seeing this sort of thing... one thing I'll point out though is that it appears that focus wasn't equal in the two tests. Take a look at the balcony rails second from the back and you'll see the tak is sharper. The left-foreground bare plane tree branches are clearly sharper in the FA, but compare the light-blue windows directly behind them... the tak appears to be focused closer to infinity than the FA. Cheers, David Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: Thought it might be fun to pit the brand-new $300+ lens against the single coated Takumar version which cost me $27... http://homepage.mac.com/godders/135cmp/ enjoy, Godfrey
for the curious ... FA135/2.8 vs Takumar 135/2.5 comparison
Thought it might be fun to pit the brand-new $300+ lens against the single coated Takumar version which cost me $27... http://homepage.mac.com/godders/135cmp/ enjoy, Godfrey
Re: for the curious ... FA135/2.8 vs Takumar 135/2.5 comparison
It's obvious that you get what you pay for. The 135/2.8 is quite impressive even wide open. Paul Thought it might be fun to pit the brand-new $300+ lens against the single coated Takumar version which cost me $27... http://homepage.mac.com/godders/135cmp/ enjoy, Godfrey
Re: for the curious ... FA135/2.8 vs Takumar 135/2.5 comparison
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote on 3/17/2005, 4:02 PM: Thought it might be fun to pit the brand-new $300+ lens against the single coated Takumar version which cost me $27... http://homepage.mac.com/godders/135cmp/ I'd say for $27 (I paid $20 for mine) the good 'ol Takumar (Bayonet) is quite the bargain lens. It would appear that the SMC on the FA version really helps the color and contrast and I know it helps flare control which is not evident in this test. -- Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: for the curious ... FA135/2.8 vs Takumar 135/2.5 comparison
On Thursday, March 17, 2005, at 01:37PM, Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://homepage.mac.com/godders/135cmp/ I'd say for $27 (I paid $20 for mine) the good 'ol Takumar (Bayonet) is quite the bargain lens. I agree! It would appear that the SMC on the FA version really helps the color and contrast and I know it helps flare control which is not evident in this test. Absolutely. I specifically did my best to eliminate flare from the results by using a deep screw-in lens hood (same one on both of the lenses) and making the exposures from a shaded porch. Godfrey
Re: for the curious ... FA135/2.8 vs Takumar 135/2.5 comparison
I'd like to see the FA compared to the K135/2.5 ... up for that some time, Godfrey? I'd be happy to meet you somewhere, bring a few lenses, and we can see how they compare on the digi and on film. Shel [Original Message] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's obvious that you get what you pay for. The 135/2.8 is quite impressive even wide open. Paul Thought it might be fun to pit the brand-new $300+ lens against the single coated Takumar version which cost me $27... http://homepage.mac.com/godders/135cmp/
Re: for the curious ... FA135/2.8 vs Takumar 135/2.5 comparison
I'd like to see that comparison as well. I'd like to see the FA compared to the K135/2.5 ... up for that some time, Godfrey? I'd be happy to meet you somewhere, bring a few lenses, and we can see how they compare on the digi and on film. Shel [Original Message] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's obvious that you get what you pay for. The 135/2.8 is quite impressive even wide open. Paul Thought it might be fun to pit the brand-new $300+ lens against the single coated Takumar version which cost me $27... http://homepage.mac.com/godders/135cmp/
Re: for the curious ... FA135/2.8 vs Takumar 135/2.5 comparison
Love to do it sometime, but this next couple of weeks is not going to be the time. I'm putting vehicles together and preparing for movers next Thursday ... It will probably be the second week of April when things settle back down again. Godfrey On Mar 17, 2005, at 3:19 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: I'd like to see the FA compared to the K135/2.5 ... up for that some time, Godfrey? I'd be happy to meet you somewhere, bring a few lenses, and we can see how they compare on the digi and on film. Shel [Original Message] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's obvious that you get what you pay for. The 135/2.8 is quite impressive even wide open. Paul Thought it might be fun to pit the brand-new $300+ lens against the single coated Takumar version which cost me $27... http://homepage.mac.com/godders/135cmp/
Re: for the curious ... FA135/2.8 vs Takumar 135/2.5 comparison
Good - I didn't expect to do it right away. Let's talk more in April and set up what we want to do and where to meet then. My first thought is some place about equidistant between us, which I guess might be around Fremont or so. Shel [Original Message] From: Godfrey DiGiorgi Love to do it sometime, but this next couple of weeks is not going to be the time. I'm putting vehicles together and preparing for movers next Thursday ... It will probably be the second week of April when things settle back down again. Godfrey On Mar 17, 2005, at 3:19 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: I'd like to see the FA compared to the K135/2.5 ... up for that some time, Godfrey? I'd be happy to meet you somewhere, bring a few lenses, and we can see how they compare on the digi and on film.
