Hi, Don. > Though the common opinion seems to be that it is a terrible lens > Christian seems to like it and I've read several other accounts of > people being fond of it.
I think that both extremes that you mention are fairly "common". > I admit that flare will be a problem without SMC, that's a given, > contrast and sharpness seem good though. And, because of these factors, it can make a pretty decent lens for portraits, except for certain outdoor situations, perhaps. > I've owned several 135/2.8s that were MUCH worse than this. I'd rather use the Takumar Bayonet 135/2.5 than the A 135/2.8. > The FA 138/2.8 actually doesn't seem a lot sharper, it does of > course handle "sun in its face" much better. I did some comparison shooting with the K 135/2.5 (my second favorite 135) and the Tak Bayonet 135/2.5, and it was actually not too easy to find a situation where the "cheapie" 135/2.5 was woefully worse for flare. There is a difference in coatings (and, perhaps, internal blackening, and/or baffling - I don't know), but the Tak Bayonet is not an uncoated piece of Coke bottle glass, either. > I have trouble buying the statement that this was designed as a > "cheaply built consumer lens", the build quality seems excellent > to me. It's really not too bad, all in all, but the K 135/2.5 simply feels a lot nicer in the hand, for my tastes. (YMMV) > Have I just not experienced a "Great" 135 or is this lens being > unfairly treated? It's easy to "kick around" an inexpensive lens, simply because it's not a "premium" lens. However, considering the price that they are going for, I think that the Takumar Bayonet 135/2.5 gives a lot of "bang for the buck". If only it didn't have those silly multicolored markings on the barrel... <g> Fred
