Hmmm, the only place I found (Darios) that gave the length lists both as 86mm, which this one is. At $15.50 I'm pretty happy either way but is one supposed to be much better than the other?
Don > -----Original Message----- > From: J. C. O'Connell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 9:20 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Two lenses, one great, one not so great. > > > the 6 element version is longer, > 85mm from the front edge of the barrel > to the flange, the 5 element version > is only 80mm measured same way. > JCO > > -----Original Message----- > From: Don Sanderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 10:13 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Two lenses, one great, one not so great. > > > Do you know how to tell for sure JCO? > The only specs I can find say the 5/4 is > 444 grams and the 6/6 is 470 grams. > All other specs are identical. > Mine weighs in at 473 grams buck naked. > Which is supposed to be the better of the 2? > > Don > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: J. C. O'Connell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 8:25 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: Two lenses, one great, one not so great. > > > > > > there are no Kmount SMC takumars. All the Kmount > > takumars were budget single coated lenes. ALL > > SMC Takumar lenses are M42. > > > > the question that needs asking is whether > > the 135mm F2.5 SMC Takumar he was using is > > the 5 element or the 6 element version? > > > > JCO > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Chan Yong Wei [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 9:13 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: Two lenses, one great, one not so great. > > > > > > Are you referring to the M42 or K-mount version of the SMCT 135/2.5? > > > > > > On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 16:20:11 -0600, Don Sanderson > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > Recieved and played with two lenses on the D today. > > > (After thawing them out, brrrr! Winter just got here!) > > > > > > SMCT 135/2.5 > > > Superb all the way, not bad even at 2.5. > > > By 5.6 one of the sharpest I've seen with very > > > "natural" OOF areas. > > > Large and heavy but very smooth and easy to work with. > > > > > > > <snip> > > >
