Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good?
I agree, Fred, on all counts. It's not as bad a lens as everyone says. $50 is a bit high. Not that it's a bad lens for $50, but rather, they can usually be gotten for cheaper. I have one, and I wasn't unhappy with it - until I bought the SMC 2.5 135mm from Shel. A much superior lens, in terms of sharpness and bokeh (I'll be posting several GFM shots taken with the SMC later - I love this lens!). But, the bayonet is only bad in comparison to the SMC - on it's own it's a competent performer, IMHO. It usually goes for around $30 or $40 though. cheers, frank The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good? Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 18:06:22 -0400 is asking $50 for it The Takumar 135/2.5 bayonet is a dog - best avoided, Well, I would tend to disagree with the canine qualities. It's not the best Pentax 135 out there, but I wouldn't exactly call it a dog, either. Still, I do think that $50 might be a bit too high. Fred _ MSN Premium: Up to 11 personalized e-mail addresses and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
RE: Testing
Lasse, Is it me, or have you been away. On the bike? Nice to see ya, frank The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: Lasse Karlsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Testing Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 22:50:25 +0300 Just testing. _ Free yourself from those irritating pop-up ads with MSn Premium. Get 2months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Re: *istD Raw Converter
the Pentax converter works OK for small prints, and only if they need minimal processing. Herb - Original Message - From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 1:30 AM Subject: Re: *istD Raw Converter The Pentax converter is just fine, although a bit of a nasty interface, providing you want to make prints, rather than look at pixels at 72 DPI. I can't comment on the one you are looking at though.
RE: pics
Bruce, Great pix. I wish I could do nature stuff like that. I got back my first roll from GFM today (1st of many to come...), and I realized from looking at my pathetic attempts at Nature Photography that I pretty much suck at it. Gives me something to work on for next year, I guess... vbg Enough about me, though. Yours totally rock. Thanks for posting them! cheers, frank The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: pics Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 10:38:13 -0700 For those on the list that actually like to look at pictures and discuss photography, I have culled down my GFM pictures to this gallery. I present them for your enjoyment (or not). I'm sure they are not perfect, but I find them at least pleasant to look at. non-politcal comments welcome www.daytonphoto.com/Galleries/gfm/index.htm -- Best regards, Bruce _ Free yourself from those irritating pop-up ads with MSn Premium. Get 2months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Re: *istD Raw Converter
the 8-vs 16-bit issue was what made me look at the SE version instead. i see now from the new data sheet comparing the four versions that there isn't nearly as much difference anymore. i wish it produced Photoshop files directly instead of TIFF-16. OTOH, i have a lot of Photoshop plugins to automate much of my processing and so it's not such a big deal to work directly in Photoshop one file at a time. that plus although i shoot a lot of images, i filter a lot out while editing. Herb - Original Message - From: Gonz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 10:53 AM Subject: Re: *istD Raw Converter There was some angst over at the dpreview site over the intentional hobbling of the functionality so that it (the LE version) only worked in 8 bits, but apparently they got so much flak over this and several other disabled features (over the previous LE version) that they back peddled and put the features back in. I hear its worth downloading for the 15 day free trial at least. I have Adobe Photoshop CS, and I love the RAW conversion capabilities and the results it gives. I'll give Capture 1 a try though and maybe post some results.
Re: Giving up on the FA 28-70/4
This is all a little worrying when I have one fitted to my MZ-3 most of the time, it's nice to know the rest of the camera bag is full of Pentax A primes and a couple of Sigma primes. John John Whittingham Technician -- Original Message --- From: Alan Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 15:20:16 -0700 Subject: Re: Giving up on the FA 28-70/4 I believe glass separation has nothing to do with the manufacturing origin, but the fact that those lenses were designed and manufactured to be cheap, the FA28-70/4 in this case. Some even had aperture blades not working properly. There are reason why some lenses were selling so cheap. Regards, Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan It was just a thought, I believe some are manufactured elsewhere than Japan. The sample looks pretty bad, makes me wonder about quality in modern lenses, I have lenses 30 years old never a problem working fine. _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN Premium http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en- capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNI S_Taglines --- End of Original Message ---
Re: Giving up on the FA 28-70/4
On Sat, 12 Jun 2004, John Whittingham wrote: This is all a little worrying when I have one fitted to my MZ-3 most of the time, it's nice to know the rest of the camera bag is full of Pentax A primes and a couple of Sigma primes. Just check it on a regular basis. Since this was a cheap lens to begin with there isn't much to complain about when it does go. alex
Re: Giving up on the FA 28-70/4
Thanks for the info Alex. John John Whittingham Technician -- Original Message --- From: alex wetmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 16:36:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: Giving up on the FA 28-70/4 On Sat, 12 Jun 2004, John Whittingham wrote: This is all a little worrying when I have one fitted to my MZ-3 most of the time, it's nice to know the rest of the camera bag is full of Pentax A primes and a couple of Sigma primes. Just check it on a regular basis. Since this was a cheap lens to begin with there isn't much to complain about when it does go. alex --- End of Original Message ---
Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good?
You can get an M 135/2.5 for $60 or so. It's far superior to the Takumar lens. BTW, I'm surprised that anyone would challenge Aparicio for offering an opinion on a lens. Let's try to maintain some balance here. On Jun 11, 2004, at 6:06 PM, Fred wrote: is asking $50 for it The Takumar 135/2.5 bayonet is a dog - best avoided, Well, I would tend to disagree with the canine qualities. It's not the best Pentax 135 out there, but I wouldn't exactly call it a dog, either. Still, I do think that $50 might be a bit too high. Fred
Cotty's GFM pics
A day earlier than advertised, here ya go. Some of the Powershot pics are fuzzy but it's a Canon - waddya expect. Not all are here, but most. If you want a decent file size copy of your pic, email me off list and I will oblige. http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps Warning - one large page with 43 pics (non larger than 60k), dial-uppers: go make a nice hot cup of tea-earl-grey-hot while it loads. Nearly 1 am so will check back in the morning for lawsuits. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good?
Hi Frank, I agree with your evaluation of the SMC 135/2.5. The Takumar may be acceptable, but there are so many superior lenses available for approximately the same price that it doesn't appear to be a good buy. Both the SMC Pentax 135/3.5 and the M version of the same lens can be had for only a few dollars more. Yet they're much better. In fact, the M seems as sharp as the SMC 135/2.5, although it is, of course, not as fast. I shot this with the SMC Pentax 135/2.5 a few hours ago: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2436353size=lg Paul On Jun 11, 2004, at 6:54 PM, frank theriault wrote: I agree, Fred, on all counts. It's not as bad a lens as everyone says. $50 is a bit high. Not that it's a bad lens for $50, but rather, they can usually be gotten for cheaper. I have one, and I wasn't unhappy with it - until I bought the SMC 2.5 135mm from Shel. A much superior lens, in terms of sharpness and bokeh (I'll be posting several GFM shots taken with the SMC later - I love this lens!). But, the bayonet is only bad in comparison to the SMC - on it's own it's a competent performer, IMHO. It usually goes for around $30 or $40 though. cheers, frank The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good? Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 18:06:22 -0400 is asking $50 for it The Takumar 135/2.5 bayonet is a dog - best avoided, Well, I would tend to disagree with the canine qualities. It's not the best Pentax 135 out there, but I wouldn't exactly call it a dog, either. Still, I do think that $50 might be a bit too high. Fred _ MSN Premium: Up to 11 personalized e-mail addresses and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/ premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/ encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Re: pics
Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For those on the list that actually like to look at pictures and discuss photography, I have culled down my GFM pictures to this gallery. I present them for your enjoyment (or not). I'm sure they are not perfect, but I find them at least pleasant to look at. Nice work, Bruce! Very good stuff. non-politcal comments welcome My political allegiance is to the Grandfather-Mountain-PDML-Saturday-Night Party ;-) www.daytonphoto.com/Galleries/gfm/index.htm -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree, Fred, on all counts. It's not as bad a lens as everyone says. $50 is a bit high. Not that it's a bad lens for $50, but rather, they can usually be gotten for cheaper. I have one, and I wasn't unhappy with it - until I bought the SMC 2.5 135mm from Shel. A much superior lens, in terms of sharpness and bokeh (I'll be posting several GFM shots taken with the SMC later - I love this lens!). I can vouch for the SMC 135 2.5 (58mm filter) also. Its a great lens, great bokeh, color, and sharpness. The only thing I don't like is the hood that is supposed to be for this lens. It seems really hard to put on. Its supposed to clip on to the interior lens rings, but just when you think its on right, its cockeyed. But, the bayonet is only bad in comparison to the SMC - on it's own it's a competent performer, IMHO. It usually goes for around $30 or $40 though. cheers, frank The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good? Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 18:06:22 -0400 is asking $50 for it The Takumar 135/2.5 bayonet is a dog - best avoided, Well, I would tend to disagree with the canine qualities. It's not the best Pentax 135 out there, but I wouldn't exactly call it a dog, either. Still, I do think that $50 might be a bit too high. Fred _ MSN Premium: Up to 11 personalized e-mail addresses and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good?
BTW, I'm surprised that anyone would challenge Aparicio for offering an opinion on a lens. Let's try to maintain some balance here. On Jun 11, 2004, at 6:06 PM, Fred wrote: is asking $50 for it The Takumar 135/2.5 bayonet is a dog - best avoided, Well, I would tend to disagree with the canine qualities. It's not the best Pentax 135 out there, but I wouldn't exactly call it a dog, either. Still, I do think that $50 might be a bit too high. Fred ? Fred
Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good?
Get the lens hood for the SMC Tak M42. It fits perfectly and except for a slight difference in finish seems to match this lens much better than the plastic clip on that was originally supplied. Gonz wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree, Fred, on all counts. It's not as bad a lens as everyone says. $50 is a bit high. Not that it's a bad lens for $50, but rather, they can usually be gotten for cheaper. I have one, and I wasn't unhappy with it - until I bought the SMC 2.5 135mm from Shel. A much superior lens, in terms of sharpness and bokeh (I'll be posting several GFM shots taken with the SMC later - I love this lens!). I can vouch for the SMC 135 2.5 (58mm filter) also. Its a great lens, great bokeh, color, and sharpness. The only thing I don't like is the hood that is supposed to be for this lens. It seems really hard to put on. Its supposed to clip on to the interior lens rings, but just when you think its on right, its cockeyed. But, the bayonet is only bad in comparison to the SMC - on it's own it's a competent performer, IMHO. It usually goes for around $30 or $40 though. cheers, frank The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good? Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 18:06:22 -0400 is asking $50 for it The Takumar 135/2.5 bayonet is a dog - best avoided, Well, I would tend to disagree with the canine qualities. It's not the best Pentax 135 out there, but I wouldn't exactly call it a dog, either. Still, I do think that $50 might be a bit too high. Fred _ MSN Premium: Up to 11 personalized e-mail addresses and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Re: Cotty's GFM pics
Great snaps Cotty. Love the one with the alien and the bridge. You're commentary made my laugh, you are a natural comedian. Looks like you guys had a lot of fun. Are you doing it next year again? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A day earlier than advertised, here ya go. Some of the Powershot pics are fuzzy but it's a Canon - waddya expect. Not all are here, but most. If you want a decent file size copy of your pic, email me off list and I will oblige. http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps Warning - one large page with 43 pics (non larger than 60k), dial-uppers: go make a nice hot cup of tea-earl-grey-hot while it loads. Nearly 1 am so will check back in the morning for lawsuits. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: half of my posts
But I have a feeling Doug might tell me it's my fault, so I hesitated to mention it again. :-) No, its affecting too many of us. One of mine just this morning didn't come through. Doug? Thanks, Joe
Re: Cotty's GFM pics
Cotty gets the award for the best snap of me so far. Only problem is, he placed me in a grouping where my piddly little 70-210 zoom looks simply pitiful next to those HUGE lenses. Anybody else thinking you were transported into the Perspective Theme PUG? Cory At home waiting for PDML messages on Friday night. I'm the youngest old fart I know. - Original Message - From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 7:49 PM Subject: Cotty's GFM pics A day earlier than advertised, here ya go. Some of the Powershot pics are fuzzy but it's a Canon - waddya expect. Not all are here, but most. If you want a decent file size copy of your pic, email me off list and I will oblige. http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps Warning - one large page with 43 pics (non larger than 60k), dial-uppers: go make a nice hot cup of tea-earl-grey-hot while it loads. Nearly 1 am so will check back in the morning for lawsuits. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.701 / Virus Database: 458 - Release Date: 6/10/2004
Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good?
Yet another reply gets eaten by the list... Attempt #2, here goes. What about SMC Pentax-M f3.5 vs this non-SMC f2.5? I do want a fairly fast lens. I have a 50mm f2 and love it. Anyway, this particular Takumar 135/2.5 seems to include a UV filter and Pentax front lens cap. I'm tempted to offer $40 for it if he throws in a rear lens cap as well. A similar lens in excellent condition is on sale at KEH for $45, no caps. I haven't seen a SMC f2.5 (that I've noticed, anyway), only the Pentax-A f2.8 which I want, but is expensive, and the f3.5 versions. __ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
Woes of the list guy WAS: half of my posts
Doug was telling us at GFM if we get 200 messages in a day, he'll get 900 with all the bounced email messages. If you want to ask him a question, don't rely on him reading a post here. Email him directly. AND Keep your fricken in-boxes cleaned-out. Cory Just finished his third roll of Kodak BW in a week. :-) - Original Message - From: Joseph Tainter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pdml [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 9:36 PM Subject: Re: half of my posts But I have a feeling Doug might tell me it's my fault, so I hesitated to mention it again. :-) No, its affecting too many of us. One of mine just this morning didn't come through. Doug? Thanks, Joe --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.701 / Virus Database: 458 - Release Date: 6/10/2004
GFM envy
--- Gianfranco Irlanda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 09:33:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Gianfranco Irlanda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: GFM envy To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi GFM guys and gals, Just few words to say how much I appreciated your reports and all the pictures posted (although I was expecting way more...) I guess I should start planning (and saving) for the next year. Ciao, Gianfranco = _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/ = _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
GFM envy
Hi GFM guys and gals, Just a few words to say how much I appreciated your reports and all the pictures posted (although I was expecting way more...) I guess I should start planning (and saving) for the next year. Ciao, Gianfranco PS: second attempt to send the message, something doesn't seem to work... = _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
New Little Toys (definitely On Topic...)
Hi everybody, It seems I cannot stop buying new pieces of equipment as soon as the opportunity arises... I had the chance to buy a couple of demo lenses from the local importer at a more than reasonable price. One of the lenses is the FA 35/2 AL, a lens I was more than once ready to buy new, but *luckily* never did. The other one instead, an FA 24-90/3.5-4.5 IF AL, I didn't even consider a lot before. Now that I own one, well... ...I'm asking myself why I insisted carrying around the weight of the powerzoom 28-105 instead of buying one of the 24-90 before... Sure, the 28-105 is almost built like a tank, while the 24-90 is quite poor under this respect but those are not lenses I tend to use in dangerous environments anyway. And even that half stop gained is nice. The only thing that I find odd about the 24-90 is that its resting position (completely retracted, that is) coincides with the shorter focal lenght (while all the other FA lenses I know rest in the middle of the zooming range - around 50mm for the 28-70 AL, around 55mm the 28-105 and around 28mm the 20-35). Oh well, I can live with that. Hope the results on film will be up to the expectations. Just wanted to add a bit of Pentax content to the list... :-) Ciao, Gianfranco PS: second attempt to send the message, something doesn't seem to work... = _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
Re: *istD Raw Converter
I'll disagree. I have a couple of 20x30 inch prints that were processed with PhotoLab. They'll knock your socks off. Christian Skofteland [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 7:10 PM Subject: Re: *istD Raw Converter the Pentax converter works OK for small prints, and only if they need minimal processing. Herb
GFM Pix: No Bunny Ears, Guaranteed!
Got back my first GFM roll today. Discovered that I suck as a landscape/nature photog, so I'll spare you the grief. These were taken the first day, so many of the contingent had yet to arrive. They were also taken with the MX, and since I used the LX as the flash cam, no night (ie: party g) pix in here. These are just snaps - a few are underexposed, and the focus off on one or two, but I hope you enjoy: http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=404595 Several more rolls ready next week, including the dreaded party pix. cheers, frank The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN Premium http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good?
$50 is too high. I got mine for $20 or $25 I think. I wouldn't pay more than $30 for it. Personally, I loved it. Some people say it's soft. I couldn't tell with largish prints. It isn't multicoated, so don't shoot into the sun. Otherwise, I thought it was a fantastic portrait lens. I sold mine when I bought the *ist D, and it's probably my only non-A lens that I regret letting go Christian Skofteland [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Jon M [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 5:37 PM Subject: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good? http://kmp.bdimitrov.de/lenses/primes/_non-SMC/tak_135f2.5.html A local shop has one in his inventory, and is asking $50 for it. There are no reviews of it on Stan's page. I was wondering if any of y'all have any experience with this lens, or any insight as to whether it'd be a decent addition to my small but growing collection of K-mount goodies? Thanks. -Jon Myers. __ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good?
I loved it. So there! :-p Christian Skofteland [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Antonio Aparicio [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 6:22 PM Subject: Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good? Aha, the opinion police are back! I've owned it, it was a dog, I got rid of it. My opinion. Antonio
Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good?
I agree, not worth $50 but not the dog it's made out to be. Definitely not a paperweight. I loved mine. Christian Skofteland [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Peter J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 5:49 PM Subject: Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good? $50.00 is too much to spend on a paperweight. Well I've over stated the case. It's not a great lens to some people it might not even be considered a good lens. I should think you could get it for less.
Re: GFM Pix: No Bunny Ears, Guaranteed!
I'd put this one up there with Cassino's insect shots: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2436610 Nicely captured! ;-) Christian Skofteland [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 10:11 PM Subject: GFM Pix: No Bunny Ears, Guaranteed! Discovered that I suck as a landscape/nature photog, http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=404595
Re: *istD Raw Converter
that only tells me how much better they would be if you processed them in Photoshop CS. Herb - Original Message - From: Christian Skofteland [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 10:12 PM Subject: Re: *istD Raw Converter I'll disagree. I have a couple of 20x30 inch prints that were processed with PhotoLab. They'll knock your socks off.
RE: GFM envy
Gianfranco, Some old-fashioned guys (like me g) had to wait to get film back from the lab! First pix just posted, with another 5 or 6 rolls back by next Tuesday. I've only just begun!! BTW, if you show up next year, I'm there for sure! (not to scare you away or anything g). I really hope you can make it! cheers, frank The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: Gianfranco Irlanda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: GFM envy Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 18:57:13 -0700 (PDT) Hi GFM guys and gals, Just a few words to say how much I appreciated your reports and all the pictures posted (although I was expecting way more...) I guess I should start planning (and saving) for the next year. Ciao, Gianfranco PS: second attempt to send the message, something doesn't seem to work... = _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/ _ MSN Premium: Up to 11 personalized e-mail addresses and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good?
Jon, I have owned the Takumar 135/2.5 once in the past. I bought one new off the shelf in 1982, paid about $80 in 1982 dollars for it. I was so disappointed in it's performance that I sold all my Pentax equipment a few months later. ( I was pressured somewhat in this by my two best friends who swore by Minolta and promised I could borrow any of their substantial collections of glass. ) The lens just wasn't sharp. From what I now know it would probably make a fine portrait lens, but I bought it for outdoor action photography. The f2.5 was nice, I got good fast shutter speeds. But I lost too much quality, it was just plain crippled by the lack of SMC. By all means buy the lens if you want it, it is better than no 135mm lens at all. Just be aware of it's foibles. I'd offer the camera store the $40 for it, use it for a while to see if you like the focal length. Then I'd go hunting for the M 135/3.5 or the K 135/2.5 and be prepared to shell out a few more dollars for the higher quality. My $.02 worth. Mark Gosdin Who caught a bargain on a K 135/3.5 and finds that it is more than good enough... Jon M wrote: Yet another reply gets eaten by the list... Attempt #2, here goes. What about SMC Pentax-M f3.5 vs this non-SMC f2.5? I do want a fairly fast lens. I have a 50mm f2 and love it. Anyway, this particular Takumar 135/2.5 seems to include a UV filter and Pentax front lens cap. I'm tempted to offer $40 for it if he throws in a rear lens cap as well. A similar lens in excellent condition is on sale at KEH for $45, no caps. I haven't seen a SMC f2.5 (that I've noticed, anyway), only the Pentax-A f2.8 which I want, but is expensive, and the f3.5 versions.
OT: Mildly Amusing
I'm always mildly amused to hear the immature challenge others to a fight. You know, you never know who you are dealing with. Interviews after the TV series 'Band of Brothers' crystalized it for me. They interviewed old men, grandfathers, generally kind and gentle looking. They were once the young men who's exploits fighting in WWII were dramatized in the show. I distinctly remember the sniper, who was gentle and soft spoken. He had lead a quiet life. These men were trained warriors. They hadn't flinched when they needed to kill another man. I know I would. I don't think you would want to lethally threaten these men even today. Old training is hard to un-learn. So I'm always amused when I see youth challenging older folks. They in for some surprises. Regards, Bob S.
Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good?
BTW, I'm surprised that anyone would challenge Aparicio for offering an opinion on a lens. Let's try to maintain some balance here. On Jun 11, 2004, at 6:06 PM, Fred wrote: is asking $50 for it The Takumar 135/2.5 bayonet is a dog - best avoided, Well, I would tend to disagree with the canine qualities. It's not the best Pentax 135 out there, but I wouldn't exactly call it a dog, either. Still, I do think that $50 might be a bit too high. Fred ? Fred Had me puzzled, too. Just because it was a posting about a lens that doesn't mean it should be treated as an ex cathedra statement. All the quoted post did was to suggest that perhaps Aparicio's opinion might be a little too didactic. Where's the lack of balance in that suggestion? Perhaps this was meant as a followup to a different post; there have been some rather more vehemently-expressed opinions seen elsewhere.
Re: Cotty's GFM pics
Gonz, Every year. First weekend after Memorial Day (so you don't have to miss Indy). This was my first year, but I'm not gonna miss it any more if I can help it. Ya gotta go!!! -frank The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: Gonz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Cotty's GFM pics Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 20:30:42 -0500 Great snaps Cotty. Love the one with the alien and the bridge. You're commentary made my laugh, you are a natural comedian. Looks like you guys had a lot of fun. Are you doing it next year again? _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN Premium http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Re: GFM Pix: No Bunny Ears, Guaranteed!
Frank, I'm surprised, some of these are really quite good. From your disclaimer I expected drek taken by a drunken sailor. I especially liked your nature shot, (the one of the drunken moth). frank theriault wrote: Got back my first GFM roll today. Discovered that I suck as a landscape/nature photog, so I'll spare you the grief. These were taken the first day, so many of the contingent had yet to arrive. They were also taken with the MX, and since I used the LX as the flash cam, no night (ie: party g) pix in here. These are just snaps - a few are underexposed, and the focus off on one or two, but I hope you enjoy: http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=404595 Several more rolls ready next week, including the dreaded party pix. cheers, frank The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN Premium http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good?
What a load of rubish. You are just being contrary because I said it was a dog. If anyone else where to have said it wasnt a good lens - as many have over the years you would no doubt have agreed and said, yes its only worth $20 or $30 ... given that the questioner is being asked $40 for the lens the only honest reply you should have given was, no its not worth it mate. On 12 Jun 2004, at 05:35, Christian Skofteland wrote: - Original Message - From: Antonio Aparicio [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yes, you loved it so much you would not recomend spending more than $20 on it. Contradiction? Nope. It was worth every penny I spent on it. Best bang for the buck. HIGHLY recommended as a ~$30 lens. And I believe I said not to pay more than $30 (re-reading posts...) yep, that's what I said. Christian Skofteland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good?
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 McAfee® Security : 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Re: Cotty's GFM pics
Hey Cotty, Thanks for sharing - it brings out much of the fun that was there and even a few things I missed out on. Bruce Friday, June 11, 2004, 4:49:04 PM, you wrote: C A day earlier than advertised, here ya go. Some of the Powershot pics are C fuzzy but it's a Canon - waddya expect. Not all are here, but most. If C you want a decent file size copy of your pic, email me off list and I C will oblige. C http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps C Warning - one large page with 43 pics (non larger than 60k), dial-uppers: C go make a nice hot cup of tea-earl-grey-hot while it loads. C Nearly 1 am so will check back in the morning for lawsuits. C Cheers, C Cotty C ___/\__ C || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche C ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps C _
Re: pics
Frank, Thanks, man. I wish I could do that city/street stuff like you do - I think I would need to watch and learn a bit before trying it. Glad that I could meet you there. Bruce Friday, June 11, 2004, 4:15:10 PM, you wrote: ft Bruce, ft Great pix. I wish I could do nature stuff like that. I got back my first ft roll from GFM today (1st of many to come...), and I realized from looking at ft my pathetic attempts at Nature Photography that I pretty much suck at it. ft Gives me something to work on for next year, I guess... vbg ft Enough about me, though. Yours totally rock. ft Thanks for posting them! ft cheers, ft frank ft The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist ft fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: pics Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 10:38:13 -0700 For those on the list that actually like to look at pictures and discuss photography, I have culled down my GFM pictures to this gallery. I present them for your enjoyment (or not). I'm sure they are not perfect, but I find them at least pleasant to look at. non-politcal comments welcome www.daytonphoto.com/Galleries/gfm/index.htm -- Best regards, Bruce ft _ ft Free yourself from those irritating pop-up ads with MSn Premium. Get 2months ft FREE* ft http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
RE: Tanja versus Britney Spears-was: reagan cortege
Woopsy Poopsy: A second reading reveals that Cotty was replying to Treena, not Tanja. Oh well, just substitute appropriate names where necessary, and substitute Pentax for *istD (since I don't know if Treena has one). Or, better yet, just ignore my earlier post. Now that I think of it, just ignore all my posts. That I've ever made. I'm going to bed now. -frank The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Tanja versus Britney Spears-was: reagan cortege Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 23:30:56 -0400 Cotty, I'd take Tan over that Spears chick any day of the week. I bet Britney can't handle an *istD like our Tanja!! She's My Type of Girl!! LOL cheers, frank The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: reagan cortege Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 11:39:54 +0100 On 11/6/04, TREENA, discombobulated, offered: And for the record, just because you describe yourself in an e-mail doesn't mean that's what you really are. I could tell you I'm 21 and I look like Britney Spears but it wouldn't make it true. but are you and do you? ...sorry ;-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ _ http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines _ MSN Premium: Up to 11 personalized e-mail addresses and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good?
Tony, why do you like to argue so much? I REALLY, honestly, think that the Takumar (Bayonet) 135 F2.5 lens is a good lens for $30. My recommendations to the original post were: $50 is too high. I got mine for $20 or $25 I think. I wouldn't pay more than $30 for it. That was a fair and honest assessment of the value and a Don't pay the $50 asking price recommendation. Screw the rest of the list, I had the lens in question for quite some time and used it a lot for portraiture. It's a great, CHEAP portrait lens. It's my opinion (and that is what is being sought by the original post: an OPINION). I'm not a sheep, Tony, I don't go along with other people to fit in. I have experience with something and I can formulate my own opinions, thank you very much. If you think I'm arguing with you personally because I get some whacked-out cheap thrill from it, don't flatter yourself. I'd argue with anyone (including the almighty, exalted, pillars-of-the-list) that this lens isn't the dog it's made out to be in actual use. It's a bad rep that it gets from not being SMC and a consumer lens. Build quality is high; higher than the plastic crap that is pumped out these days. I've been told that it's soft but I haven't noticed anything in PRINTS. And I recommend not shooting into the sun. And again: I wouldn't pay more than $30 for it. Christian Skofteland [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Antonio Aparicio [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 11:35 PM Subject: Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good? What a load of rubish. You are just being contrary because I said it was a dog. If anyone else where to have said it wasnt a good lens - as many have over the years you would no doubt have agreed and said, yes its only worth $20 or $30 ... given that the questioner is being asked $40 for the lens the only honest reply you should have given was, no its not worth it mate.
RE: GFM Pix: No Bunny Ears, Guaranteed!
Fun stuff. -Original Message- From: TMP [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 10:14 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: GFM Pix: No Bunny Ears, Guaranteed! FINALLY, somebody posts some pics that don't include any bad photos of me! Woohoo... I miss you guys, I wanna go back now... tan. -Original Message- From: frank theriault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, 12 June 2004 12:11 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: GFM Pix: No Bunny Ears, Guaranteed! Got back my first GFM roll today. Discovered that I suck as a landscape/nature photog, so I'll spare you the grief. These were taken the first day, so many of the contingent had yet to arrive. They were also taken with the MX, and since I used the LX as the flash cam, no night (ie: party g) pix in here. These are just snaps - a few are underexposed, and the focus off on one or two, but I hope you enjoy: http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=404595 Several more rolls ready next week, including the dreaded party pix. cheers, frank The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN Premium http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994; DI=1034SU=htt p://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
RE: Cotty's GFM pics
Woo hoo! -Original Message- From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 6:49 PM To: pentax list Subject: Cotty's GFM pics A day earlier than advertised, here ya go. Some of the Powershot pics are fuzzy but it's a Canon - waddya expect. Not all are here, but most. If you want a decent file size copy of your pic, email me off list and I will oblige. http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps Warning - one large page with 43 pics (non larger than 60k), dial-uppers: go make a nice hot cup of tea-earl-grey-hot while it loads. Nearly 1 am so will check back in the morning for lawsuits. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
RE: reagan cortege
Shawn, You're sick. Seek help. Seriously. I'm not kidding. Your behaviour on the list of late is not normal. You may be a danger to yourself or others. I'm really not joking. I hope you take my advice, for your sake, and the sake of those around you. This will be my only post on this matter, no matter if you spew vitriole my way or not. I've said my piece, now I'll go away. best regards for a speedy recovery, frank The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: Shawn K. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: reagan cortege Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 22:47:42 -0400 Yeah Bob, you're just so witty and smart, because being witty equals being smart, never mind all those things like SAT scores, and IQ scores, and what have you I'm honestly not friendly, nor do I really like people, they largely annoy me, I'm super competitive, I always want to win, and it miffs me when its impossible to win. Like now, now it's impossible to win, it's impossible to save face, but I must run this broken train through wall after wall until every single one of you simply give up out of sheer fatigue. Its just the way I am. Sorry, but my will to achieve the upper hand is simply enormous in these types of situations. I probably should have pursued a degree in dictatorships, or gone to Grad school as a Fascist overlord in training. But you know, my school just didn't offer such forward thinking fields of study. Go figure. -Shawn _ MSN Premium with Virus Guard and Firewall* from McAfee® Security : 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Re: mz 3/5n limited lenses
lol thanks for that Dario. I tried the same search for pentax mz 5n earlier, and it it didn't yield any limited lenses, so i didn't try 'mz 3'. doh.. Cheers, Ryan - Original Message - From: Dario Bonazza [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2004 3:07 AM Subject: Re: mz 3/5n limited lenses http://www.altavista.com/image/results?q=pentax+mz3mik=photomik=graphicmi p=allmis=allmiwxh=allstq=0 Dario Bonazza - Original Message - From: Ryan Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: PDML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 5:33 PM Subject: mz 3/5n limited lenses Was just scouring the net for pictures of a silver 3 or 5n with the limited lenses attached. Only managed to find a picture of a black 3 with a 43 limited. Anyone with a link? Regards, Ryan
Re: Cotty's GFM pics
Mr Cottrell you've truly outdone yourself! Wonderful shots and I think it's great browsing the creativity of one shot to the next. Love the captions too- Ewoks indeed. You're probably still recovering from compiling this essay, but I already can't wait for the next one! Cheers, Ryan PS. Cougar -enrichment-? rofl! Is that like, for extra credit? - Original Message - From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2004 9:49 AM Subject: Cotty's GFM pics A day earlier than advertised, here ya go. Some of the Powershot pics are fuzzy but it's a Canon - waddya expect. Not all are here, but most. If you want a decent file size copy of your pic, email me off list and I will oblige. http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps Warning - one large page with 43 pics (non larger than 60k), dial-uppers: go make a nice hot cup of tea-earl-grey-hot while it loads. Nearly 1 am so will check back in the morning for lawsuits. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: GFM Pix: No Bunny Ears, Guaranteed!
I like the one of the drunken moth too Frank.. though silly me was thinking What a big moth. Waste of a bucket of ale.. Then I saw the tin (Diet Coke?) and realised, in a very Oprah moment, it wasn't a bucket, and I have to come to terms with being a lush. What I would really have liked to see though, is bunny ears on those fixed binos! Every smiley face needs bunny ears.. Cheers, Ryan - Original Message - From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2004 12:11 PM Subject: GFM Pix: No Bunny Ears, Guaranteed! Got back my first GFM roll today. Discovered that I suck as a landscape/nature photog, so I'll spare you the grief. These were taken the first day, so many of the contingent had yet to arrive. They were also taken with the MX, and since I used the LX as the flash cam, no night (ie: party g) pix in here. These are just snaps - a few are underexposed, and the focus off on one or two, but I hope you enjoy: http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=404595 Several more rolls ready next week, including the dreaded party pix. cheers, frank The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN Premium http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Re: pics
Only just got a chance to take a look at the pics, but Bruce they're fantastic! And I agree with Steve on the mountains fading into the next- very nice. Any of the mountain lion not playing hard-to-get though? Regards, Ryan - Original Message - From: Steve Desjardins [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2004 5:57 AM Subject: Re: pics I really like those pictures of the mountains slowly fading with each ridge. I see this all the time where I live (same mountains), but you caught some good examples.
Re: inflammatory subjects
Back then, there was this black labrador who peed on a hydrant in a rather posh neighbourhood, and when a group of yellow labradors woofed him to pee elsewhere, the black labrador refused to give up his hydrant. These days black or yellow labs pee wherever the heck they want, but if anyone says a black or yellow labrador is better than the other, it's inflammatory and you offend all sorts of civil rights kennels. I think that was the initial reference ;) Cheers, Ryan - Original Message - From: Peter J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2004 4:11 AM Subject: Re: inflammatory subjects Hey, wait a minute, what does this have to do with dogs? John Francis wrote: Reminding us of Simon King's post sometime back (I may need to archive my PDML folder about now..) about the dyslexic, agnostic insomniac who lay awake in bed all night, wondering if there was a dog.. Cheers, Ryan Then there was the dyslexic devil-worshipper who sold his soul to Santa
RE: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good?
The SMC 2.5/135mm is not an M, it's a K. Jens Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 12. juni 2004 01:50 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good? You can get an M 135/2.5 for $60 or so. It's far superior to the Takumar lens. BTW, I'm surprised that anyone would challenge Aparicio for offering an opinion on a lens. Let's try to maintain some balance here. On Jun 11, 2004, at 6:06 PM, Fred wrote: is asking $50 for it The Takumar 135/2.5 bayonet is a dog - best avoided, Well, I would tend to disagree with the canine qualities. It's not the best Pentax 135 out there, but I wouldn't exactly call it a dog, either. Still, I do think that $50 might be a bit too high. Fred
