Thanks Bob, apparently the 135/2.8s I've tried have been SO bad that it made this one look good. ;-) That's why I threw this question out there.
Don > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2004 6:19 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Takumar (Bayonet) 135/2.5 > > > Don askes: > >>Have I just not experienced a "Great" 135 or is this lens being > unfairly treated? > > Don, > > I've run some subjective tests with Pentax 135's. The A135/1.8 > was best, followed by the K135/2.5, followed by the M135/3.5, > with the Takumar A?135/2.8 bayonet in last place. I could see > the differences on 4x6 prints. > > I think the issue is that the M135/3.5 is so good and cheap, why > waist your time with the Takumar bayonet? Some folks have > stumbled into these lenses and use them as their 135mm prime. > The results are OK if that's the only 135mm prime you have and > probably beat that zoom everyone else is using. > > Regards, Bob S. >
