Re: Subject: Re: Pentas M 135/3.5 vs. Takumar 135/2.5 vs Takumar M42 135/3.5

2010-10-13 Thread Eric Weir
On Oct 13, 2010, at 12:44 AM, P. J. Alling wrote: I was extremely lucky, my copy of the SMC [K] 135 f3.5 came my way as a lens cap on a MX purchased on ebay. Wow! In that connection, bidding is about to end on the lens I bought yesterday -- Pentax SMC M 135/3.6 -- with the bid currently

Re: Subject: Re: Pentas M 135/3.5 vs. Takumar 135/2.5 vs Takumar M42 135/3.5

2010-10-13 Thread Eric Weir
On Oct 13, 2010, at 11:10 AM, Eric Weir wrote: Pentax SMC M 135/3.6 Make that 3.5. -- Eric Weir Decatur, GA USA eew...@bellsouth.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net

Re: Subject: Re: Pentas M 135/3.5 vs. Takumar 135/2.5 vs Takumar M42 135/3.5

2010-10-13 Thread P. J. Alling
That should have been body cap not lens cap but you got the idea. On 10/13/2010 11:10 AM, Eric Weir wrote: On Oct 13, 2010, at 12:44 AM, P. J. Alling wrote: I was extremely lucky, my copy of the SMC [K] 135 f3.5 came my way as a lens cap on a MX purchased on ebay. Wow! In that connection,

Subject: Re: Pentas M 135/3.5 vs. Takumar 135/2.5 vs Takumar M42 135/3.5

2010-10-12 Thread Jerry in Arizona
OK, I have an SMC Takumar 3.5 (M42) that I picked up pretty cheap that I use on my K20D.  Have not used it much but early results seem good.  Any comments on this lens? -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML,

Re: Subject: Re: Pentas M 135/3.5 vs. Takumar 135/2.5 vs Takumar M42 135/3.5

2010-10-12 Thread P. J. Alling
I think it's the same design as the SMC [K] 135 f3.5, much as the SMC [K] f2.5 is the same optically as it's immediate predecessor, the SMC Takumar 135 f2.5. If that's true it's a fine performer, very sharp, very light compared to the 2.5. The only problem is it's a PITA to focus in dim