Fred wrote:
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).
Hah, like I've never made the same mistake myself! <g>
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
I'm in total accord with that sentiment!
I still have a lot of Takumars of various sizes and shapes, all
excellent performers, including two SMC 135s, one an f/2.5 type I, the
other an f/3.5.
I DO happen to have a (Bayonet) version of the 135mm Takumar, but it was
a "gift" lens that accompanied a body I wanted.
It may end up being a gift to someone else. Why not...
My SMC Takumar 135 is such a performer I bring it and an adapter along
when I take a K-mount body out for a walk!
keith
