Отправлено 18 March 2005 - 13:16
Что-то не получается у меня правильно вставить якорь, поэтому скопирую цитаты с сайта Stan'a:
* 135 mm f/2.5
NOTE: The following comments refer to the SMC lens with 58 mm filter thread - not the Takumar
- - - - - -
Pavel - 135/2.5 is very sharp lens (I feel one of the sharpest lenses in that range).
- - - - - -
William Cornett - I have a Pentax 135 f 2.5 Takumar. I've never been happy with the resoloution, but the danged thing has at least five magazine cover shots to its credit, and I've never been able to make up my mind about replacing it until recently. [NOTE: this Takumar (Bayonet) 135 f/2.5 is NOT the same as the 135 mm f/2.5 K-mount lens with SMC coating. smh]
- - - - - -
tv - Maybe the worst prime Pentax ever put out, in terms of resolution and contrast. Built like a tank. Good as a portrait lens, if you want to soften things up a bit.
- - - - - -
Bob S. - The old Pentax K 135 F1:2.5 with the 58mm front . . . is sharper than the M 135 F1:3.5 by a lot and only less sharp than the A* 135 F1:1.8 by a little under most conditions.
[Bob again . . .] . . . K-135/2.5 with a 58mm front end... is worth the hunt. It is a great lens at a good price, and few except those on this list know about it. I've done some informal tests on the A*135/1.8, K-135/2.5, M-135/3.5, and Tak-135/2.5. The Tak-135/2.5 (52mm filter) isn't very good. The A*135/1.8 is expensive, 躔+ if you can find one. The K-135/2.5 is the next best and if you are lucky, you will find one in the same price range as the M-135/3.5. . .
- - - - - -
Paul Stenquist - The SMC 135/2.5 is among my favorite lenses, and I use it frequently. This is the focal length I prefer for shooting head shoots in a crowd or children at play outdoors. It gives me enough focal length to remain unobtrusive, yet it's short enough for hand held work in bright light. The SMC 135/2.5 is extremely sharp to my eye, although I haven't tested it. In terms of color, it seems to produce brighter more saturated color than my other 135, the M 135/3.5. The bokeh is subtle and very pretty.
- - - - - -
Arnold Stark - Mechanically superb and a pure joy, optically very good but not superb. [I use it for] portraits, snapshots, details, low light. . . The mechanical quality is superb and pure joy. The focal length is one of my favourite ones, and the lens is fast enough for easy focusing and low light shooting. It is much heavier than the M135/f3.5 but makes a better combination with the LX. On an M camera, however, the M lens feels better. . . Resolution is good but not better than that of the M135/f3.5, and the FA135/f2.8 seems to be slightly ahead of them both. [With respect to bokeh, . . .] here the lens is at the (high) Pentax standard, neither below, nor above. As one would expect from a 135mm lens, the background is very nicely blurred if it is far away, however, sometimes narrow lines like thin branches double noticeably, especially if they are closer than the main object... The FA77 is better for sure...
- - - - - -
PAUL STENQUIST - The Pentax SMC 135/2.5 . . . [is] a magnificent piece of glass and should never be mentioned in the same sentence as the K-Mount Takumar 135/2.5. . .
- - - - - -
george de fockert - Big, heavy, excelent built SMC lens in K mount version. Its a pity that the hood is plastic. I did some astrophoto test some years ago . . . At 2.5 it shows some vignetting which is gone at 4.0. The K 2.5 and K 3.5 perform both equally well, but only the 2.5 has no vignetting at 4.0
0
/>). Особенно интересует аспект оптики, хотелось бы поглядеть на снимки, сделанные с его помощью.
