Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: > On Thu, 5 Oct 2006, Jostein ?ksne wrote: > >> IIRC, the Takumar name was not resurrected for bargain lenses until the "A" >> era. > > All these are non-A; only the 28 has an A-brother. > > http://kmp.bdimitrov.de/lenses/primes/_non-SMC/tak_28f2.8.html > http://kmp.bdimitrov.de/lenses/primes/_non-SMC/tak_135f2.5.html > http://kmp.bdimitrov.de/lenses/primes/_non-SMC/tak_135f2.8.html > http://kmp.bdimitrov.de/lenses/zooms/_non-SMC/tak_80-200f4.5.html > > Kostas
Ah yes, the Bayonet series Takumars. It's been said they're not quite up to the quality of the M42 Takumars, tho'. That's only hearsay, taken from messages on this list, not something I've read in a reference book. For instance, my M42 S-M-C Takumar 135mm f/2.5 has 5 elements in 4 groups, with a 6-blade aperture, while my Takumar Bayonet 135mm f/2.5 has 4 elements in 4 groups, with a 8 blade aperture. The Bayonet's lenses are coated, but are not SMC. Seems they might perform differently, but I've done no critical testing of the sisters... keith whaley -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
