NEWS FLASH: Besides the length, there are two other obvious ways to tell which version is which of the two 135mm F2.5 S-M-C-Takumar lenses (screwmount).
Heres a picture of the first version: http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1381022022 Heres a picture of the second version: http://jcoconnell.com/temp/2nd135smct.jpg 1. First the length of the barrel. Notice the gap from the edge of the lenscap to the chrome trim on the front of the focus ring. On the second version of the lens, this gap is obviously longer. CAUTION, both lenses must be focussed on infinity to make this comparison as they are in both photos. Easy reminder: "The LONGER the barrel, the more accurate the shot" The two new ( to me ) differences other than the length of the barrel are: 2. Notice the DOF scale. The first version has no marking for F4. The second version is marked "4" at the center index. Easy reminder: Go "4" it! 3. Notice the distance scale. The first version has its last marking in meters before infinity as "30" meters. The second version has it's last marking in meters before infinity as "35" meters. Easy reminder: "30" is DIRTY! ( ok, that one sucks) I think the best and easiest way to tell/remember is the "4" on the DOF scale. Just remember : " GO "4" IT! Hope that clears the matter once and for all. I know I learned a little bit more about 135mm F2.5 SMCT lenses tonite. I've been using the length method only for 10 yrs, what a pain in the ass. JCO ======================================================================= > -----Original Message----- > From: J. C. O'Connell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 12:00 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: SMCT 135/2.5 > > > No, there were two different S-M-C Takumar (both screwmount) > 135 2.5 lenses. The first is 80mm long, the second is > 85mm long (measured from front edge of barrel to flange > with focus set at infinity). I know of no way to tell just by a > serial number alone. > > The second version is an improved 6 element design while > the first is the same very old 5 element design as the super-Takumar. > > The second version is the one to get. It's about the same as or > slightly rarer as the first version. Last one I sold went for > $125 on ebay about 6 months ago to a buyer who knew the difference. > > BTW, the 135 2.5 "Takumar" bayonet mount lens (non-smc) is a total piece > of crap budget series lens not worth buying at any price...... > > JCO > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Keith Whaley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 11:08 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: SMCT 135/2.5 > > > > > > I'm just making a semi-educated guess, but I think you're speaking of > > the Takumar, and it has come in both M-42 screw mount and > K-mount bayonet? > > That's all I can think of. > > If so, their performance whould be essentially identical to each > > other, as most bayonet SMCs are 'merely' M-42s with bayonet mounts. So > > I'm given to understand... > > > > Frankie Lee wrote: > > > > > > There are two versions of SMCT 135/2.5. Do they have the same > > optical performance? Thanks. > > > > I have no info on serial numbers, and don't know where to get any! :^( > > However, as a single point of reference, I have a 135mm, f/2.5 SMC > > Takumar, M-42 mount, s/n 4,961,35x, the "x" being the obfuscating > > numeric character... ;^) > > > > keith whaley > > >
