Hi, now there's only missing the F/FA 135/2.8[IF] in his comparison! What do we know about it?
All the best Thomas > Hi all, > > this is from Paul Fox who had an excellent response. He may join us, but for > the moment couldn't work out how to join. I showed him the way... > > :-) > > Paul Delcour > > >From Paul Fox: > > I just found the thread on pentax discission forum but I don't know to > reply.. > Anyway : > I have made my expperiences with many Pentax 135 lenses : > > The 1.8 A, K2.5, K-Takumar 2.5, M42-Takumar 2.5, A 2.8, M 3.5 > > First : The 1.8 is the best of them all but nearly noone will sell it (by > good reason !). > The second best is the K 2.5 (that U mentioned being on ebay) > The 3.5 is not THAT good (in my opinion) - and that is supported by a big > 135 lens test in german ColorFoto magazin in the early 80's. There were > nearly all 135mm lenses... (and they support my opinion about the K 2.5 > being one of the best 135 in the world and the 3.5 being good but not > phantastic). > The A 2.8 is really not a good lens ! > The M42-Takumar 2.5 I have is an SMC one and really great - but not on same > level as K 2.5 (maybe because it's older and the SMC has been improved > then). I use it with adaptor ring on my Canon EOS that I'm using too. > > The K Takumar is really not bad ! It's made quite fine, has built-in lens > hood (the K 2.5 and M42-Takumar or 1.8 don't have ! you have to screw a lens > shade on), is lighter, you have to beware of flare - you should leave the > sun behind you - not in front, otherwise... > o.K. : I've been making indoor sport shots with it and portraits as well and > this lens lens was very good in both cases. > > I just sold it because I could get the K 2.5 and that is really heavy ! - > but for indoor sports a little bit better (even not THAT much !). > > 40 EUR is a fair price for the Takumar ! > The K 2.5 mostly sells for 60-90 Euro on ebay. > You have to decide whether this extra money is it worth for you ! > > One thing : If you want to take portraits the K 2.5 may even be too sharp > and contrasty - every line in the face can be seen. There the K-Takkumar is > even smoother - many people liked portraits with the K-Takumar even better ! > > Kind reagrds > > Paul Fox
