Screwmount Takumars: 85 vs 105?

[Jerevan]

Hello,

I figured I'd ask if anyone of you has any hands-on experience using the 105 mm f2.8 Takumars?

I have a 135 f2.5 gathering dust in the closet, mainly due to me having problems using it handheld. Need to cut down on the coffee, I think.  :wink:

So, now I am thinking along the lines of a 85 or 105 for handheld portraits with APX100 or possibly Tri-X, wide open or near wide open. Does that sound like a better idea?

/edit/
The usual merits/non-merits of these lenses I am of course interested to know of, too...

TIA,
Jimi

[nelsonfoto]

I think the 85 would do fine. I just picked up a zoom that maxes at 90mm and that feels more comfortable than 135. The 105 would make a good choice as well.

Nothing against the 135 length. It's a good length, and I love my 135/f2,8 Chinon M42.

[sandeha]

I had two lenses around there, a 90mm and a 105mm.   I bought both for macro and they did that job OK, but neither was handy for portraits.  They just weren't comfortable hand-held.  As for the length, with a lens that was exclusively for portraits I think I'd be happy with either 85 or 105 if it was good wide open and handled well.

[Jerevan]

Well,

as it is today, I do portraits with the f1.4 50mm I have. Overall photographically, I tend towards the semiwide (28-35) and normal (roundabout 50) spectrum.

But the lenses are so cheap now, going for half a peanut. It's only PAS (Pentax Acquistion Syndrome), I guess. Save me.

[nelsonfoto]

Well, if yer horny for wide screwmounts, I've got a lovely 35mm f2 Super Takumar. It ain't cheap. But I could be talked out of it.

[Jerevan]

I'd love a 35, definitely! But the price for shipping over the pond would probably kill me. :lol:

[nelsonfoto]

I'm asking $150 for the lens/caps/case. Shipping shouldn't be that much, question is can you afford the $150.

This is the 35mm f2. Hard to find. Just an FYI.