on 28.01.03 15:49, Fred at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > [I assume that you are referring to the Takumar bayonet 135/"2.5", > and not to the M42 SMC Takumar 135/2.5, which is essentially > optically the same lens as the SMC K 135/2.5.] I forgot M42 version, but of course I had K-version on my mind :-)
> I'd say that the SMC K 135/2.5 is a better lens, and I think it is > worth getting, if you want a really good fairly fast 135. However, > the Tak Bayonet 135/"2.5" is not all that bad, considering its > compromises, and is a good lens for the money (considering how > cheaply you can sometimes find them). > > To me, the biggest difference is the SMC versus non-SMC coating > difference, which can be seen in the reflections (or lack thereof) > in http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/135252.jpg (the SMC K is to the > left, while the Tak Bayonet is to the right). > Thanks! Yes, no-SMC could be a problem in sunny portraits. Maybe I would wait longer and just buy 77/1.8 Ltd? ;-) -- Best Regards Sylwek
