Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2017/10/13
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I concur with your description of the Super-Takumars.? They just have a feel of quality to them.? I still use the 50/1.4, 55/1.8 and 135/3.5 from time to time.? I also have a Pentax bellows and a set of extension tubes that see occasional use. Jim Nichols Tullahoma, TN USA On 10/13/2017 9:17 AM, Alan Magayne-Roshak wrote: > On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 Jim Nichols <jhnichols at lighttube.net>wrote: > >> A nice way to be remembered, indeed. >> I see several with the Takumar 135/3.5.? I still use mine for >> butterflies and skydivers. :-) >> Jim Nichols >> Tullahoma, TN USA > ==================================================== > Aside from being sharp lenses, I always thought that, physically, the > Super-Takumars were the most elegantly styled lenses around. I liked > the type of knurling on the focus rings, and the way that the focusing > scales > were enclosed in a metal shroud, with that small window on top to show the > numbers. All other brands didn't bother with such tidyness. I only have a > couple of Takumars now; I gave my late brother most of my Pentax gear > when I switched to Olympus in 1982 (I needed to upgrade to bayonet mount > lenses, and three of my friends used OM's, so we could share). >