Christ, Antonio,
Give it a freaking rest!! You've made your freaking point, do you have to go on and on and on and on? Do you kniow what "beating a dead horse" is?
We know you don't like the lens. We know you used to own one. Enough already.
Just because Christain says it's not worth the $50 that whoever it was saw it for, doesn't mean it's a bad lens. It means that because of their reputation (whether deserved or not) and because they're so plentiful, the going price is like $20 or $30, that's what it means.
The market value ~can~ be quite independant of it's quality.
The Super Tak f1.4 50mm screwmount can usually be picked up for under $50. It's an OUTSTANDING lens (as long as it doesn't have the yellow curse, which can be fixed anyways). If made today, Pentax would have to market it for over $1000, likely much more. Because it's routinely available on eBay for under $50 doesn't mean it's a bad lens. Just that it's supply is more plentiful than the demand. Basic economics.
But, really, take a Valium and chill out, dude. You're becoming bothersome...
cheers, frank
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
From: Antonio Aparicio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good? Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 05:24:45 +0200
Yes, you loved it so much you would not recomend spending more than $20 on it. Contradiction?
A.
On 12 Jun 2004, at 04:23, Christian Skofteland wrote:
I loved it. So there! :-p
Christian Skofteland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Premium with Virus Guard and Firewall* from McAfeeŽ Security : 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
