Hi!
The only photo I ever enlarged to 30x40 cm was made by the subj lens.
This is very good lens for its price. Indeed it does not have SMC, but
otherwise it is excellent portrait lens. That's of course MHO.
---
Boris Liberman
www.geocities.com/dunno57
www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=38625
>> To me, the biggest difference is the SMC versus non-SMC coating
>> difference, which can be seen in the reflections (or lack
>> thereof) in http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/135252.jpg (the SMC K
>> is to the left, while the Tak Bayonet is to the right).
>>
> Thanks! Yes, no-SMC could be a proble
It's my understanding that the two lenses are the same glass and build
quality. If you don't mind the slower changing of the lenses in a
K-mount body while using the Tak and the adapter, the Tak is the
better bargain, so far as price is concerned.
I took my MG body with me to Hawaii, and frequentl
Fred wrote:
>
> > Is the lens from the subject worth anything as a portrait lens and
> > general purpose short telephoto prime, or is it useless and I
> > should look for SMC-K 135/2.5? Some words on this Takumar's
> > sharpness, colour rendition, contrast?
>
> [I assume that you are referring
Hi,
Have you got my direct mail?
FA 77/1.8 is much more expensive so it is difficult to compare both.
I managed to buy my in Vienna for 40$ in mint condition!!
I was very lucky.
And focal length is completely different so maybe it is better to buy 77 and 135/3.5
instead of 2.5?Maybe...
Your decisi
on 28.01.03 15:49, Fred at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [I assume that you are referring to the Takumar bayonet 135/"2.5",
> and not to the M42 SMC Takumar 135/2.5, which is essentially
> optically the same lens as the SMC K 135/2.5.]
I forgot M42 version, but of course I had K-version on my mind :-
on 28.01.03 15:15, Lukasz Kacperczyk at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> That's one hell of a lens, Sylwek. Very nice bokeh. Don't know much about
> its sharpness - never needed iut from that lens :-)
And it is very small and uses 49 mm filters :-)
>
> I've noticed some chromatic abberation, though (n
on 28.01.03 14:55, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi,
> As far as I know it is MUCH better to find SMC K version. It is more expensive
> but worth bying.
Eh.. or maybe I'd better save for 77/1.8 Ltd :-)
--
Best Regards
Sylwek
15:00:48 +0100
To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Takumar 135/2.5 opinions?
on 28.01.03 14:55, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi,
> As far as I know it is MUCH better to find SMC K version. It is
more expensive
> but worth bying
Hi,
M135/3.5 is also quite nice. It is usually cheap and has pleasant bokeh. I sold one to
my brother when I bought SMC K135/2.5 but 3.5 version is very good. I like it very
much and my brother uses KX with mirror up so he can shoot at 1/30 , 1/60 hand held.
Alek
Użytkownik Sylwester Pietrzyk <
> Is the lens from the subject worth anything as a portrait lens and
> general purpose short telephoto prime, or is it useless and I
> should look for SMC-K 135/2.5? Some words on this Takumar's
> sharpness, colour rendition, contrast?
[I assume that you are referring to the Takumar bayonet 135/"2
11 matches
Mail list logo
