Jon,
Contgratulations on your new lens. Let us know how you get on with it. I owned the SMC-M 135/3,5 briefly too and didnt like it much either, but perhaps I had a dud example. I own the SMCK 135/3.5 and the 135/2.5 and they are both excellent if ever you feel like venturing further along the line.
Antonio On 12 Jun 2004, at 21:22, Jon M wrote:
Wow, this discussion sure took off.
Those of you who gave your opinion of the lens in question based on your experience, thank you. Those who dislike the lens will probably be happy to hear I've decided not to buy it, instead I found a SMC Pentax-M 135/3.5 cheaper than the Takumar was. I really wanted a Pentax-A lens, but the SMC A 135/2.8 doesn't have very nice reviews on Stan's page, plus it seems to be expensive... which is why I was going to consider the non-SMC lens as a cheap alternative.
Now if I had a few more lenses, I could almost do without my Sears 80-200/4. ;)
A Pentax-A 100/2.8 and perhaps the Pentax-A 200/4 would be nice. Also, the -A 70-210/4 and -A 35-70 (3.5-4.5) look like nice lenses. Dang, I think I'm catching Pentax disease.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
