They're the two I have so I didn't have much choice. ;-)
The T135 only cost me $27 ... I think it does darn nicely for that price ... but it needs to be stopped down quite a good bit.
Godfrey
On May 17, 2005, at 9:47 AM, P. J. Alling wrote:
Oooh, bad comparison, of course the FA135 will come out on top. The K135 f2.5. is a different beast altogether.
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
I have the FA135; I haven't noticed anything specific in terms of blooming problems, using it with the DS. Can you post a couple of example photos? I'm curious to know what you are seeing.
I did some casual comparison tests, comparing the FA135/2.8 against the Takumar K-bayonet 135/2.5 ... see http://homepage.mac.com/godders/135cmp/ . At that time, I also took shots for comparison against the Pentax A70-210/4 Macro set to 135mm. It was the clear winner on sharpness and lack of flare against either of those.
I'd be interested to know how your K135/2.5 compares.
Godfrey
