[d.bradley]

Although I was planning to do some tweaking to my lineup, I wasn't prepared for the few deals I came upon in the last two days.

I've swapped out my 17/4 Fisheye-Takumar for a 17/4 Super-Multi-Coated Fisheye-Takumar! This means my lineup is now completely Super-Multi-Coated. Well I guess my 50/1.4 is SMC (rubber style, not metal) so it's not technically a "Super-Multi-Coated" version, so it doesn't quite match. I don't know if I'll bother replacing it just for the aesthetics.

Next, thanks to Kevin here on the board, I have swapped out my 85/1.9 SMC Tak for an 85/1.8 SMC Tak. WOW!!!

So now, I still have all the same focal lengths:

17/4
35/2
50/1.4
85/1.8
300/4
500/4.5

ALL SMC!!! As far as I'm concerned the collection is complete. I will probably be trying out a 15/3.5 over the holidays, but am doubtful that it will replace the 17/4 SMC Fisheye simply because of the size. And I love the fisheye effect.

[Eaglerapids]

That is very cool:-).
How do you like the 500/4.5?

[d.bradley]

Honestly I bought it, and have been on the road for three months and haven't had a chance to use it, nor even get a tripod for it.

I've just completed the move to my apartment in Grand Cayman, so I now have a place to keep my gear. I should be able to get my tripod setup, and get some shots pretty soon. I hear Cayman Camera is great camera store, I look forward to chatting with them!

I'll post some shots of the local wildlife as soon as I get some!

[roy]

That is very cool:-).
How do you like the 500/4.5?

the 500/4.5 is an amazing lens but it uses you, not you use it. it does take a tripodtho due to it's size.

[regken]

That is a great lineup. The quality of all those lenses is superb. Congrats on putting togther such a well thought out setup.

Ken

[d.bradley]

That is a great lineup. The quality of all those lenses is superb. Congrats on putting togther such a well thought out setup.

Ken

Thanks! I went through a lot of lenses to figure out the specifics of these. I wanted to go from ultra-wide to super-tele, but minimize redundancy and unused focal lengths as you step through the focal lengths.

Each of the lengths has its use, and in my experience putting any lens between those listed wouldn't result in a huge benefit, when taking into account my shooting style.

[carpents]

You're glaringly missing one of the best - the S-M-C Takumar 135/2.5. You're also really missing the 28/3.5, another one of my favorites.

Otherwise, great job! I too recently got the 85/1.8 and it is quite nice.

[Lowell Goudge]

You're glaringly missing one of the best - the S-M-C Takumar 135/2.5. You're also really missing the 28/3.5, another one of my favorites.

Otherwise, great job! I too recently got the 85/1.8 and it is quite nice.

If someone is looking for a 135 F2.5 Takumar, I passed up 2 yesterday in a store (took SMC 135 f2.5 in stead) At least 1 of them also has the origonal lens hood also

[d.bradley]

You're glaringly missing one of the best - the S-M-C Takumar 135/2.5. You're also really missing the 28/3.5, another one of my favorites.

Otherwise, great job! I too recently got the 85/1.8 and it is quite nice.

Hey Sean,

Honestly, if I were going to go with the 28/3.5, I'd almost have to get rid of the 35mm because they're so close in focal length. If you had to pick between the two, which would you take?

As for the 135mm, yours is the second suggestion that I go for that length. Now...I've tried a 135mm before and found it too long for portraits, and too short for an outdoor walkabout. But you know what, I might go look for a 120/2.8 SMC Tak just for the mission, and to finally do some tests of this lens. I haven't seen many examples on the 'net.

What's the deal on the serial #'s on the 135/2.5? I want to make sure I get one with 6(?) elements, not 5. I think those numbers are right.

Cool that you found a 85/1.8 as well. You prefer it over the 1.9 I assume? I almost don't want to let my 1.9 SMC go...bit I must fight the urge to amass a collection of 'shelf' lenses...

[dndavis]

I just picked up 50/1.4 and 105/2.8, both Super-Multi-Coated. I have a 85/1.8 on order now.

I'm thinking of a 200/4 for the long end of things, and a 16mm Zenitar for wide angle. I'm a bit torn between the 28/3.5 and the 35/2.4 Flektogon for a standard length.

My plan is to shelve my autofocus lenses for at least six months and work just with the manual focus lenses, with and without flash. Back to basics.

[roy]

You're glaringly missing one of the best - the S-M-C Takumar 135/2.5. You're also really missing the 28/3.5, another one of my favorites.

Otherwise, great job! I too recently got the 85/1.8 and it is quite nice.

a 200/4 would fit in there also.

[carpents]

Hey Sean,

Honestly, if I were going to go with the 28/3.5, I'd almost have to get rid of the 35mm because they're so close in focal length. If you had to pick between the two, which would you take?

As for the 135mm, yours is the second suggestion that I go for that length. Now...I've tried a 135mm before and found it too long for portraits, and too short for an outdoor walkabout. But you know what, I might go look for a 120/2.8 SMC Tak just for the mission, and to finally do some tests of this lens. I haven't seen many examples on the 'net.

What's the deal on the serial #'s on the 135/2.5? I want to make sure I get one with 6(?) elements, not 5. I think those numbers are right.

Cool that you found a 85/1.8 as well. You prefer it over the 1.9 I assume? I almost don't want to let my 1.9 SMC go...bit I must fight the urge to amass a collection of 'shelf' lenses...

I personally like the 28/3.5 more than the 35/2. I guess it is because I have the 31/1.8 that is far better for low-light than is the 35/2, I prefer the slightly-wider 28 in good light. The 28 is sharp across the frame all the way to f/3.5 so it is usable at every aperture. I also seem to like the 'texture' of images with the 28, I'm not quite sure how to describe it.

Yes, there are two different 135/2.5 configurations. Mine is spectacular and while I too didn't immediately like the focal length it became a very useful short telephoto after using the lens. I rarely stop it down past f/4.

The 85s are currently posing a bit of a dilemma. The Super-Tak 85/1.9 is softer than the S-M-C Tak 85/1.8 but it renders far differently at all apertures, so I can see a reason to keep them both. My real problem is that the S-M-C Tak 85/1.8 and 77/1.8 Limited aren't too different as far as overall images. Add in that I have two Helios-44 85/1.5 (one is a 44-2 model) and a Jupiter-9, none of which get much use, and I'm not sure if I should be holding on to all these (admittedly beautiful) lenses. I suppose it is an enviable position.

[d.bradley]

Interesting Sean. Although I like the 35/2, I'm seriously thinking about dropping the cash for a 31/1.8.

From my minolta days, I think the 17/4 has done a great job replacing the 15/2.8 Sigma fisheye I was using. The 85/1.9 (and now the 1.8) is a decent enough replacement for the 100/2. The only lens I'm really missing from those days is the MAF 35/1.4 G. 17/50/85/300/500 are all working well for me, but I'm craving a killer normal lens.

The only problem is that I don't want to break my rule and get an AF lens for a specific mount. I want top stay "body neutral" if I can. Maybe I should chase down a flecktagon 35/2.4 (although I'd prefer f2 or brighter, but there have to be compromises...).