Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] OM 135/2.8 and 1st photos of 2016

Subject: Re: [OM] OM 135/2.8 and 1st photos of 2016
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 22:09:34 -0800
I have both lenses. The difference in feeling, in hand, is greater than the numbers suggest. The f2.8 feels and looks somehow more serious, professional, or something.

The diameters are no mystery, when you realize that the mount itself is 59 mm. As far as I know, Oly never made any regular lenses with a diameter on the rear of the body less than that. That's probably why the µ4/3 25 & 45 f1.8s look odd to me, with a thin body, flaring out to the mount.

Generally, at least on lenses where the focusing ring is close to the mount, it seems they elevated the focusing ring slightly relative to the mount. If you look at the detail pages for these two, you will see that they are almost identical in diameter in the rear, but the f3.5 is smaller in the front half.

In hand, the two 200 mm lenses also seem more different than the numbers would suggest. Because they are both relatively small and light, I preferred the 135/2.8, but because they are starting to get big and heavy, I preferred the 200/5. I've used both the 200s, but I think I may not have actually used the 135/3.5, acquired in some batch buy. As Mike recently suggested on TOP, the 135 was never a FL I loved, anyway.

Looking at far more recent, more objective data, when I had a full range of FLs to play with, almost all with the 14-150, a few with Panny 45-150, 11% were in the range of 60-75 mm (120-150 mm eq.)

Quantifiable Moose

On 1/11/2016 4:55 PM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
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.

--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz