135mm 3.5 Takumar
=================
Weight Diam x Length Filter Min. Focus Max.
Magnification
320g (early), 343g (late) 59.5mm x 87.5mm 49 mm 150 cm 0.11x
much more at
<http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/S-M-C-Super-Takumar-135mm-F3.5.html>
135mm Zuikos
============
f/3.5 Zuiko quite a bit smaller and lighter
<http://omesif.moosemystic.net/om-sif/lensgroup/135mmf35.htm>
weight 290g. length 73mm. diamter 60mm
2.8
<http://omesif.moosemystic.net/om-sif/lensgroup/135mmf28.htm>
weight 360g. length 80mm. diameter 61mm
Nearly the same diameter as the 3.5 is a surprise to me.
Chuck Norcutt
On 1/7/2016 4:49 PM, Mike Lazzari wrote:
- the 135's barrel was massive. And it was heavy as lead, not speaking
of the ultra slow 42mm thread, my reason for the change.
I don't remember the takumar 135/3.5 as being "massive". I believe the
135/2.8 Zuiko was bigger and the Z135/3.5 a little smaller. I no longer
have an example to check. The Spotmatic body was definitely bigger than
my OM1. I had an SP500 which was slightly lighter. The 42mm thread was a
PITA, the big negative. However the OM bayonet mount was bulky and added
to the base of the lens.
Mike
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|