I've got the 2.5 "Takumar bayonet" (not the SMC), and it's not a bad lens. Fairly sharp, but since it's not multi-coated, I expect it might flare; I've not had that problem yet, because so far I've only shot with the sun at my back (since I know it's not SMC).
I think it's thought of as a dog because of the inevitable comparisons with the SMC 2.5 and SMC 3.5, which I understand to be very sharp lenses. But, given that it can be routinely gotten for under $50US, I think it's a relative bargain. FWIW, frank Doug Franklin wrote: > For that price, I'd expect it to be the "Takumar (Bayonet) f/2.5 > 135mm". If so, some people don't like it, but I think it does just > fine as long as you're not using it to measure line pairs per > millimeter. :-) The SMC f/2.5 135 mm is a sharper lens, but it goes > for $100 or more compared to the $40 you've been quoted. > > TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ -- "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
