I got mine for ~$25 as well and really, really liked it. Sure it isn't SMC, but unless you shoot into the sun, flare was not an issue (built in lens hood!). I found it to be a great portrait lens and my example was clearly not as soft (even wide open) as some would suggest. Never tried it on digital, so I can't say if it would have CA problems.
-- Christian http://photography.skofteland.net Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > I paid $27 for a Takumar Bayonet Mount 135/2.5 in EXC shape from > KEH.com. It was worth what I paid for it. I replaced it with an > FA135/2.8 IF a couple of months later. > > Godfrey > > On Oct 5, 2006, at 11:46 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote: > > >>It was the least expensive of all the Pentax 135 K-mount lenses. Some >>of the elements aren't multi-coated. The supply of these lenses >>exceeds >>the demand, so they are not worth a lot. Others have reported getting >>good results with the lens as well, but it's only forth around $50 US. >>I'd start the auction at $30 tops. Or I'd keep the lens. >>Paul >>On Oct 5, 2006, at 6:35 AM, J and K Messervy wrote: >> >> >>>What's wrong with the Takumar bayonet lens? From using it, I reckon >>>it's a great piece of glass. > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
