[EgelhaafKurt]

had reported horrific miss rates with the AF

I had seen that, I don't mind the heft and would be purchasing it with the lens dock to correct any focusing shortcomings. I love primes, but I feel that if I am going to spend more than $300 on a lens it needs to have that flexability, also I can usually find quality older primes, like my M 50mm f1.4 that I love dearly, for cheaper.

[pathdoc]

and would be purchasing it with the lens dock to correct any focusing shortcomings

Just bear in mind that even this did not cure the problem for some people - and for those it did, it was a LOT of work. Caveat emptor, they say, and you have had your warning. That being said, best of luck. I seriously, really do hope you get a good copy that nails it every time, out of the box, and is everything you want it to be.

[mattb123]

The Sears 135/2.8 with macro is good for the price. I don't care for the macro mode but as a telephoto lens it's good for the money. I paid about $40.

[rjm007]

I have the 135 and 200mm SMC-M primes. As others have mentioned a very nice compact package. Here's a crop from the 200mm taken on my A6000

[Douglas_of_Sweden]

I have found a Takumar 135mm F2.5 for $39, I have heard really positve reviews on the K-series version of this lens, but very little good news on the Takumar. At 39 is that a good deal, or should I steer clear? With the good deal I got on the other lenses I can probably buy one more.

If you are talking about the Takumar boyonet 135/2.5 it is the 4:4 ernostar lens design, the simplest 135mm design that Pentax used from 1965 to 1989 for the

Super Takumar model II 135/3.5 m42
Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 135/3.5 m42
SMC Pentax 135/3.5 K

And with minor modification to allow f2.5 used in

Takumar (bayonet) 135/2.5 K
Takumar bayonet 135/2.8 K
SMC Pentax-A 135/2.8 KA

The SMC have 7 layer coating, the others 3 layers.

It is a so-so lens. OK, but not the best. You can see fantasy prices af >100USD on these from people hoping you misstake them for the other more advanced optical solutions, the 5:4 of the Super Tak 135/2.5 and SMC Tak mod 1 135/2.5, or the 6:6 of the SMC Tak mod 2 135/2.5 aka the SMC Pentax 135/2.5. Of the 4:4s only the last should cost >100USD due to SMC and A contacts. I've got my Tak bayonet for 20USD in a pawn shop. 30-50 USD should be more normal.

[Auzzie-Phoenix]

I've been curious about the 80-320 but there are really no good examples of pictures taken with this lens on the web. Mostly everything I find seems to be taken 10+ years ago and downsized to 1MP or so.

And a +1 on the Takumar Bayonet 135mm. There are two versions, f/2.5 and f/2.8. I had the f/2.5, sold it, regret it, and bought the f/2.8 last year for less than 40 dollars. I think the 2.5 and 2.8 are basically the same lens, the 2.8 being the later version and I think it has somewhat improved coatings (still not SMC though). They're both excellent value and capable of great pictures, if you find a good copy. Both the one I have and the one I sold are good copies and are sharp from wide open.

I have the FA 80-320. It's not a bad lens if you can control its quirks. One of them being that it is EASILY overwhelmed in bright light and loses contrast, so you absolutely have to stop it a good bit down and have a lens hood. If you'd like to see some sample images, send me a PM and i'll link some of my better shots from my private gallery.

[ChristianRock]

I have the FA 80-320. It's not a bad lens if you can control its quirks. One of them being that it is EASILY overwhelmed in bright light and loses contrast, so you absolutely have to stop it a good bit down and have a lens hood. If you'd like to see some sample images, send me a PM and i'll link some of my better shots from my private gallery.

Thank you for that! I would PM you but you are not currently accepting PMs.

[Auzzie-Phoenix]

Oh... sorry about that... I must've checked something in settings when I signed up. Guess I can just toss some pics in here.







Those 3 were taken handheld with pixel shift using the 80-320.









Those are the best of the ones i've gotten with that lens. The birds don't let me get close at all in most cases, which usually tends to be outside the range of the lens for clean pics.

[ChristianRock]

Oh... sorry about that... I must've checked something in settings when I signed up. Guess I can just toss some pics in here.







Those 3 were taken handheld with pixel shift using the 80-320.









Those are the best of the ones i've gotten with that lens. The birds don't let me get close at all in most cases, which usually tends to be outside the range of the lens for clean pics.

Thank you for posting these. Even in these smaller size, they seem to confirm my impression that while it is a lens with nice colors, and you did a good job with the compositions, it's just not that sharp. Again, even at web sizes you can see that. I don't think it would make sense to get this over a Tamron or Sigma 70-300 which are in the same price range in the used market, but are sharper. And the Pentax 55-300 is clearly a big step above.