I cant see any point in you tryingf the M 135/3.5 Don if like with the Takumar you will only take your own impressions if they are backed up by those of others as you have done here.
A. On 7/8/04 8:39 am, "Don Sanderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks Fred, good answers. > I noticed that the M 135/3.5 is pretty inexpensive, I'll try one some day. > BTW: Don't let "you know who" bother you, I don't. > It seems the longer you're on this list the more he dislikes you. > > Don > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Fred [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 11:29 PM >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: Re: Takumar (Bayonet) 135/2.5 >> >> >> 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 >> >> >
