T Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> "Vintage" is not a good indicator of anything. For example, the first real
> telephoto for 35mm SLRs was the Nikkor Q 200/4. Even it's first version is
> optically top quality, better than either OM 200 mm. OTOH, a later Alpex
> 200/3.5 is full of pleasing glow wide open. I have both; the Nikkor is not
> on my list of alt Lenses and the Alpex is.
Perhaps in the same category, there's an ancient Pentax 200/3.5
that has 18 aperture blades. Screw mount, only four elements &
none aspherical. Some users rave about it & some consider it
better than later Pentax 200s.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/Takumar-200mm-F3.5.html
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|