>> It's not SMC. It's not as good as the A* 135/1.8 or the K 135/2.5. But, >> if you don't have to pay too much for it, it can be a decent-enuf 135 >> (200mm "effective FL" on the D/DS/DL). (I think it's really an f/2.8 lens, >> but I won't quibble too much here...) >> >> Fred
> Excuse me? > The lens says "Super-Multi-Coated Takumar." > what do you mean "It's not SMC"? > You, of all people, ought to know that it *IS* SMC. Oops - I made the assumption that it was the K-mount "Takumar [Bayonet]" 135/"2.5" that was being referred to. Yes, the screwmount "Super-Multi-Coated Takumar" is indeed SMC, and it also indeed is a dynamite lens (I believe optically the same as the SMC K 135/2.5, one of my personal favorite lenses, and one of only two of my pre-A lenses - the other being the K 200/2.5 - that I'll keep for use on my DS). In my defense, I was misled by two things: 1. The subject line of "How bad is the 135 F2.5 TAKUMAR?" implies that the lens discussed is not a strong performer (e.g., the K-mount "Takumar [Bayonet]" 135/"2.5"). I never would have thought that that subject line would have been referring to the Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 135/2.5. 2. Pentax NEVER should have stooped to applying the once revered "Takumar" name to many of its budget non-SMC K-mount lenses, which adds an unfortunate ambiguity to the significance of the "Takumar" name. (shame on you, Pentax.) Fred
