Re: Takumar (Bayonet) 135/2.5
On Sat, 7 Aug 2004, Fred wrote: > It's really not too bad, all in all, but the K 135/2.5 simply feels > a lot nicer in the hand, for my tastes. (YMMV) I shot a few for the first time with this one on Saturday. Boy does it feel great on the -5n and grip. I just could not find enough subjects to point it to. Really looking forward for the prints (and the next opportunity to mount it). Kostas
RE: Takumar (Bayonet) 135/2.5
Thanks Doug, I picked up a M135/3.5 and I think I'll keep one of the Taks around too. I was thinking what you just said, keep the softer one for portraits where I can control the light somewhat. Don > -Original Message- > From: Doug Franklin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2004 5:21 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Takumar (Bayonet) 135/2.5 > > > On Fri, 6 Aug 2004 20:51:11 -0500, Don Sanderson wrote: > > > I've used this lens and got what I thought were very good/sharp results. > > Though the common opinion seems to be that it is a terrible > lens Christian > > seems to like it and I've read several other accounts of people > being fond > > of it. > > I suspect that, in a lot of cases, this is because they're comparing it > with the K 135/2.5, which is the next best thing to legendary, like the > K 200/2.5. I've got both the K and the Tak, and the K is very much > superior. But the Tak is no piece of crap. Given the choice, I'd sell > the Tak and keep the K, based on what I shoot, but I might change my > mind if I did mostly portraits. > > TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ > >
RE: Takumar (Bayonet) 135/2.5
Thanks Bob, apparently the 135/2.8s I've tried have been SO bad that it made this one look good. ;-) That's why I threw this question out there. Don > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2004 6:19 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Takumar (Bayonet) 135/2.5 > > > Don askes: > >>Have I just not experienced a "Great" 135 or is this lens being > unfairly treated? > > Don, > > I've run some subjective tests with Pentax 135's. The A135/1.8 > was best, followed by the K135/2.5, followed by the M135/3.5, > with the Takumar A?135/2.8 bayonet in last place. I could see > the differences on 4x6 prints. > > I think the issue is that the M135/3.5 is so good and cheap, why > waist your time with the Takumar bayonet? Some folks have > stumbled into these lenses and use them as their 135mm prime. > The results are OK if that's the only 135mm prime you have and > probably beat that zoom everyone else is using. > > Regards, Bob S. >
Re: Takumar (Bayonet) 135/2.5
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Don askes: Have I just not experienced a "Great" 135 or is this lens being unfairly treated? Don, I've run some subjective tests with Pentax 135's. The A135/1.8 was best, followed by the K135/2.5, followed by the M135/3.5, with the Takumar A?135/2.8 bayonet in last place. I could see the differences on 4x6 prints. I think the issue is that the M135/3.5 is so good and cheap I got one for about $22 last week. :-) /Henri
Re: Takumar (Bayonet) 135/2.5
Don askes: >>Have I just not experienced a "Great" 135 or is this lens being unfairly treated? Don, I've run some subjective tests with Pentax 135's. The A135/1.8 was best, followed by the K135/2.5, followed by the M135/3.5, with the Takumar A?135/2.8 bayonet in last place. I could see the differences on 4x6 prints. I think the issue is that the M135/3.5 is so good and cheap, why waist your time with the Takumar bayonet? Some folks have stumbled into these lenses and use them as their 135mm prime. The results are OK if that's the only 135mm prime you have and probably beat that zoom everyone else is using. Regards, Bob S.
Re: Takumar (Bayonet) 135/2.5
I cant see any point in you tryingf the M 135/3.5 Don if like with the Takumar you will only take your own impressions if they are backed up by those of others as you have done here. A. On 7/8/04 8:39 am, "Don Sanderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks Fred, good answers. > I noticed that the M 135/3.5 is pretty inexpensive, I'll try one some day. > BTW: Don't let "you know who" bother you, I don't. > It seems the longer you're on this list the more he dislikes you. > > Don > >> -Original Message- >> From: Fred [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 11:29 PM >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: Re: Takumar (Bayonet) 135/2.5 >> >> >> Hi, Don. >> >>> Though the common opinion seems to be that it is a terrible lens >>> Christian seems to like it and I've read several other accounts of >>> people being fond of it. >> >> I think that both extremes that you mention are fairly "common". >> >>> I admit that flare will be a problem without SMC, that's a given, >>> contrast and sharpness seem good though. >> >> And, because of these factors, it can make a pretty decent lens for >> portraits, except for certain outdoor situations, perhaps. >> >>> I've owned several 135/2.8s that were MUCH worse than this. >> >> I'd rather use the Takumar Bayonet 135/2.5 than the A 135/2.8. >> >>> The FA 138/2.8 actually doesn't seem a lot sharper, it does of >>> course handle "sun in its face" much better. >> >> I did some comparison shooting with the K 135/2.5 (my second >> favorite 135) and the Tak Bayonet 135/2.5, and it was actually not >> too easy to find a situation where the "cheapie" 135/2.5 was >> woefully worse for flare. There is a difference in coatings (and, >> perhaps, internal blackening, and/or baffling - I don't know), but >> the Tak Bayonet is not an uncoated piece of Coke bottle glass, >> either. >> >>> I have trouble buying the statement that this was designed as a >>> "cheaply built consumer lens", the build quality seems excellent >>> to me. >> >> It's really not too bad, all in all, but the K 135/2.5 simply feels >> a lot nicer in the hand, for my tastes. (YMMV) >> >>> Have I just not experienced a "Great" 135 or is this lens being >>> unfairly treated? >> >> It's easy to "kick around" an inexpensive lens, simply because it's >> not a "premium" lens. However, considering the price that they are >> going for, I think that the Takumar Bayonet 135/2.5 gives a lot of >> "bang for the buck". >> >> If only it didn't have those silly multicolored markings on the >> barrel... >> >> Fred >> >> >
Re: Takumar (Bayonet) 135/2.5
Hi, Don. > Though the common opinion seems to be that it is a terrible lens > Christian seems to like it and I've read several other accounts of > people being fond of it. I think that both extremes that you mention are fairly "common". > I admit that flare will be a problem without SMC, that's a given, > contrast and sharpness seem good though. And, because of these factors, it can make a pretty decent lens for portraits, except for certain outdoor situations, perhaps. > I've owned several 135/2.8s that were MUCH worse than this. I'd rather use the Takumar Bayonet 135/2.5 than the A 135/2.8. > The FA 138/2.8 actually doesn't seem a lot sharper, it does of > course handle "sun in its face" much better. I did some comparison shooting with the K 135/2.5 (my second favorite 135) and the Tak Bayonet 135/2.5, and it was actually not too easy to find a situation where the "cheapie" 135/2.5 was woefully worse for flare. There is a difference in coatings (and, perhaps, internal blackening, and/or baffling - I don't know), but the Tak Bayonet is not an uncoated piece of Coke bottle glass, either. > I have trouble buying the statement that this was designed as a > "cheaply built consumer lens", the build quality seems excellent > to me. It's really not too bad, all in all, but the K 135/2.5 simply feels a lot nicer in the hand, for my tastes. (YMMV) > Have I just not experienced a "Great" 135 or is this lens being > unfairly treated? It's easy to "kick around" an inexpensive lens, simply because it's not a "premium" lens. However, considering the price that they are going for, I think that the Takumar Bayonet 135/2.5 gives a lot of "bang for the buck". If only it didn't have those silly multicolored markings on the barrel... Fred
Re: Takumar (Bayonet) 135/2.5
I fail to see what "growing up" has to do with inquiring about whether or not there exists a lens that gives even better results. I can see however, what "growing up" has to do with being an asshole. Norm Antonio wrote: Don, if your experience tells you that it gives very good/sharp results then why should you care what anyone else thinks? Grow up and go and take some photos for christs sake. On 7/8/04 3:51 am, "Don Sanderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Have I just not experienced a "Great" 135 or is this lens being unfairly treated? What do you all think, any good or not?
Re: Takumar (Bayonet) 135/2.5
> Don, if your experience tells you that it gives very good/sharp > results then why should you care what anyone else thinks? Maybe we should abolish the PDML, then, and spend ~all~ of our time shooting... (???) > Grow up and go and take some photos for christs sake. You managed to be disrespectful to both Don and Christ in the same sentence. Fred
Re: Takumar (Bayonet) 135/2.5
Don, if your experience tells you that it gives very good/sharp results then why should you care what anyone else thinks? Grow up and go and take some photos for christs sake. A. On 7/8/04 3:51 am, "Don Sanderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've used this lens and got what I thought were very good/sharp results. > Though the common opinion seems to be that it is a terrible lens Christian > seems to like it and I've read several other accounts of people being fond > of it. > I admit that flare will be a problem without SMC, that's a given, contrast > and sharpness seem good though. > I've owned several 135/2.8s that were MUCH worse than this. > The FA 138/2.8 actually doesn't seem a lot sharper, it does of course handle > "sun in its face" much better. > I have trouble buying the statement that this was designed as a "cheaply > built consumer lens", the build quality seems excellent to me. > > Have I just not experienced a "Great" 135 or is this lens being unfairly > treated? > > What do you all think, any good or not? > > Don > >
Takumar (Bayonet) 135/2.5
I've used this lens and got what I thought were very good/sharp results. Though the common opinion seems to be that it is a terrible lens Christian seems to like it and I've read several other accounts of people being fond of it. I admit that flare will be a problem without SMC, that's a given, contrast and sharpness seem good though. I've owned several 135/2.8s that were MUCH worse than this. The FA 138/2.8 actually doesn't seem a lot sharper, it does of course handle "sun in its face" much better. I have trouble buying the statement that this was designed as a "cheaply built consumer lens", the build quality seems excellent to me. Have I just not experienced a "Great" 135 or is this lens being unfairly treated? What do you all think, any good or not? Don
Takumar (Bayonet) 135/2.5
Frank; What are your true feelings about this lens? I use mine all the time. I think it makes a great portrait lens and I have not seen the softness issues reported by others. Sure, the lack of SMC makes it flare like a mother-** but indoors I think it's great! Christian Skofteland [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: "frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2002 1:04 PM Subject: Re: Pentax lens lack of half stop detents > Hi, Christian, > > You know, you're right! I too, have that "doggie" 135mm "bayonet", and 1/2 > stops thoughout. The rest of my Taks and Pentax are 1/2 stops except a full > stop, just before the smallest stop. > > BUT, to further confuse things, my old 3.5 200mm Takumar pre-set, has full > stops throughout the range, except it ~has~ a 1/2 stop detent at the smallest > stop! > > Go figure! > > And, I still don't know why... > > cheers, > frank > > Christian Skofteland wrote: > > > Just a quick check of my lowly, much-unloved-by-the-list Takumar (Bayonet) > > 1:2.5 135mm. It has half stops all the way from 2.5 to 22. All the other > > SMC glass I own including the Super-Multi-Coated Tak 55/1.8 do not have the > > half stop between the highest and next to highest f-stop. Interesting. > > > > Christian Skofteland > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > -- > "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist > fears it is true." -J. Robert > Oppenheimer > >
