I think the M is more highly regarded because there are simply more M's
available. I doubt that an M will out preform a K that hasn't been
abused. That said, the 135mm focal length was exceedingly popular and
most designs were refined over the years until by the mid 70's it was
just about imp
On 17 Aug 2014, at 13:44, "Stanley Halpin" wrote:
>
> 15± years ago confusion about the 135mm lens lineup was the reason I went
> looking for information. And found what later became the PDML.
Hence the phrase 'Ignorance is bliss'.
B
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml
The filter diameter on the M is 49mm. I think that kind of seals the
deal. I can see why the M is generally more highly regarded. I did not
know that they added a group. I've actually wanted the 3.5 for some
time now. Maybe I should snag one from KEH.
On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 9:31 AM, P.J. Alling
The K 135 f3.5 and the M 135 f3.5 have very different designs, the
former being a 4 element 4 group the later being 5 element 5 group, the
M is also quite a bit shorter and lighter than the K roughly a 1/2 inch,
(12mm to be exact), and about a quarter pound lighter, despite the M
having a built
PF users rate the K 135/3.5 as superior to the M counterpart, but I've
also heard the opposite being true. I may be wrong, but I believe both
have the same optical fomula. Pentax clearly did some tweaking to
formulas though between the two series because the K series
counterparts generally perform
On 8/17/2014 8:43 AM, Stanley Halpin wrote:
15± years ago confusion about the 135mm lens lineup was the reason I went
looking for information. And found what later became the PDML. And found a
range of opinions and advice. I gathered and synopsized all of the opinions
about all of the 135mm of
15± years ago confusion about the 135mm lens lineup was the reason I went
looking for information. And found what later became the PDML. And found a
range of opinions and advice. I gathered and synopsized all of the opinions
about all of the 135mm offerings and that was the beginning of my (now
This explains all the mixed reports I've heard about the K 135 2.5. A
big part of me wants to fill my bag with nothing but K series glass.
My back might not like that though...
On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Bob Sullivan wrote:
> Yes, the weak Takumar 135/2.5 in K mount has a multicolored dof
Yes, the weak Takumar 135/2.5 in K mount has a multicolored dof scale
on the barrel - always easy to spot on ebay. I also believe it is not
multicoated glass. The older SMC K 135/2.5 is an excellent lens,
second only to the A135/1.8. Most people don't know about it.
Regards, Bob S.
On Fri, Aug
Bob,
Sorry, I should have explained that part a bit better for those who
are unaware of the confusing state of Pentax's 135mm f2.5 offerings.
Here are the versions of the 135mm f2.5 made by Pentax:
Screwmount:
1) Super Takumar and S-M-C Takumar Version 1
2) S-M-C Takumar Version 2 (6 element desig
A bit confusing offer.
There is a SMC K 135/2.5 lens in a K bayonet mount, but you say NOT BAYONET.
So are you offering a screwmount version? Why not say so directly?
Regards, Bob S.
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 6:40 PM, Darren Addy wrote:
> As you probably know, this is the K-mount version of the a
I have one.
I love it.
Cheers,
frank
On 15 August, 2014 7:40:48 PM EDT, Darren Addy wrote:
>As you probably know, this is the K-mount version of the acclaimed
>Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 135mm f2.5 (version 2), the 6-element
>design. This is the finest optical design Pentax made in the 135mm
As you probably know, this is the K-mount version of the acclaimed
Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 135mm f2.5 (version 2), the 6-element
design. This is the finest optical design Pentax made in the 135mm
focal length. On a DSLR it gives you the equivalent of a 200mm FOV and
f2.5.
This one is gorgeous c
13 matches
Mail list logo
