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. >
