[eddie1960]

for $25 I'd grab it, you really can't lose, if you don't like it you can flip for a tidy profit. compared to my industar 50mm it's big lol, but i think I'd prefer it

[Ryan Trevisol]

Well I mentioned it earlier but it's gone. I called yesterday and it was already sold and is probably on it's way to eBay.

[Ryan Trevisol]

Figured I would bump this thread instead of making a new one.

Looks like I'm about to score (maybe not as big as this last deal, but I've got a guy about to sell me a Pentax ME, with a Pentax-M 50 1.7, a Sears Auto MC 28mm 2.8 (A decent lens, I already have one), a leather case, a teleconverter, motor drive, flash . . . . aaaaaaaannnnnd . . . what looks like a Pentax-K (Takumar Bayonet) 135 f2.5. Hard to tell in the tiny, tiny pics. But it definitely, definitely looks like the 2.5 not the 3.5. I'm going to drive down there to find the hell out.

Oh, and the price?

$35 for the whole kit. And It passed the tests of not being stolen property (has pictures, has phone number, didn't sound overly motivated to sell it, was a lazy bum about driving 5 miles to meet me in the middle).

I don't think I'm gonna be greedy with this one. My cousin's husband is a big photo guy and I saw him getting jealous of my ME SE the other day, so I think I'll upgrade the light seals, and give him this ME with my Chinon 50 1.7, the 28, the teleconverter, and the bag, and keep the 135. Win/win. And if my wife gets mad I sell the 135.

[Ryan Trevisol]

Holy Jeez.

I just checked the ad again, it says it's a 2.5

And here's the kicker.

It's the same flippin' guy! Same phone number. So you know what, he didn't learn his lesson from before, so this time the deal is mine and I don't feel a bit bad about it.

[DaveHolmes]

I've kind of been wanting that lens because of the compactness. I think it would be a great lens to walk around with on my ME or even my K-x

It's great on the ME (permanently attached to my black one) for street shooting...
It's not too great on my K-x... Save for a DA21mm Ltd...

[Ryan Trevisol]

Right, read the last two posts. Different deal, same guy.

[Ryan Trevisol]

Well I drove down there, met with the very nice guy after he picked his kid up from school, and gladly ponied up the $35 for what was described.

First, the incredibly good:

• Pentax ME - Cosmetically 7/10, Functionally 8/10. Cosmetically, the leather is near dry-rot, it needs some serious help or to be changed. Functionally, the meter, frame counter, shutter, and mirror all work. All controls are smooth and functional, but it needs light seals, and the mirror bumper melted and left a smear on the bottom of the mirror. Doesn't show in the viewfinder, but the VF does have a bunch of dust on it.
• Pentax-M 50mm 1.7 in 9/10 condition. I only take one off because there might be a flaw I'm not seeing. Great lens. It had some kind of overspray on the front element but my lenspen got it looking as good as new. Seriously, there's not a mark on this glass. No dust even!
• Pentax ME Motor Drive in 6/10 condition. It's dirty. Maybe once I clean it up it'll look better. I don't see myself putting 6 AA batteries in just to wind my film for me, though.
• Sears Auto MC 28mm 2.8 in 9/10 condition. I like my Focal-brand version of this lens better, a little smaller, focuses a little closer, has better coatings.
  No-name 2x teleconverter. Meh, I have no use for these.
• Vivitar 2600 flash. Working condition unknown. Could be fun to mess around with if it works.
• Pentax Pleather bag from what looks like the mid 70's.

All in all, I figure a pretty good haul for $35. I figure someone bought the ME new as a kit with the 50/1.7 in ~'79, and added the Takumar Bayonet later in 1980 when it came out.

And that brings me to the disappointment of the afternoon. Turns out it's not a Pentax K 135/2.5, it's a "Takumar (Bayonet)". . . . interesting if you look up the reviews for the non-smc version of the lens, most of the reviews start with "I bought this lens before I realized there were two versions of this lens."

*raises hand*

Me too. Turns out it's the 1980-88 version, non multi-coated, inferior-design (but at least made in Japan) version. So it's not the $300 lens for $35 that I thought I was going to get.

Oh well, I guess now I get to keep it. It's not SMC coated, but it is coated, and it's in perfect condition. It really balances the smallness of the ME in my hand. I really like the feel of this lens. Took a couple test shots with it today and I'll take some more tomorrow. Seems pretty sharp through my ME viewfinder, and it might even deliver some interesting images on my K-X, especially in low-light.

And I have to say, it's got to be one of the most solid-feeling lenses I've ever felt. That includes the Pentax-M. The only thing more solid would by my old 200mm Super Tak M42. That thing is the mag light of lenses.

So I'll do what I said I would. I'll keep the Pentax-M 50 1.7, the 135 2.5, and the flash. I'll clean up and store the winder and the bag until I need to sell the whole kit.

In the meantime, I'll put a light seal kit on the ME, attempt to carefully clean the mirror, dust it out and oil up the leather, and let my cousin use it with the Sears 28 that came with it, and my Sears 50 1.7.

[Nick Siebers]

Ah, Ryan, I was at work and couldn't warn you but saw it coming a long way away. I had the same thing with the 135's. Still, the Takumar Bayonet is not quite as terrible as some of the reviews will have you believe. Use the hood, don't shoot into strong light, and you will get some use out of it.

[rfortson]

I bought that 135 to use on my Olympus Pen E-P1. It's okay, but certainly nothing special. I had the SMC-A 135/2.8 but gave it to my sister. I wish I had that one back as I took some great shots with it.

Oh well, for $35 you made out nicely.

[Ryan Trevisol]

Thanks guys. I probably would've done the deal anyway so don't feel bad.

It's all good. I really like this lens. The fact that it's an underdog makes me like it more somehow. I took a couple test shots with the 135 and I've gotta say I really like this focal length. It's a good medium closeup lens with the film camera, and I imagine it's a nice long 200mm equivalent on digital. It looks pretty great through the viewfinder, extremely bright, and brings things close enough that focusing is super easy. We'll see what comes out on film. I think I might have to lug it to europe!

And yeah, I made out pretty good. If my cousin doesn't take to the camera, I'll spit-shine the whole kit pretty good and flip it on eBay - probably make a few bucks off of it, and I get to keep the M50 and the 135.

Actually, come to think of it, if I can get Cameraleather to make me a white pleather kit for the ME, I will probably flip my SE with the rest of this kit, because it's shot counter doesn't currently work, and this new one does, but the leather's shot.

[SylBer]

I got a K 28mm f3.5 in mint condition for 60 $ on Craigslists. Not quite the same deal as the K 50mm f1.2 for 25 $ but still a good deal.

[klh]

I have a copy of the same Takumar Bayonet 135/2.5, and I also don't think it is as bad as its reputation.

For the price you paid, I would say you got a great deal.