Hi, So when I look at my SMC Pentax 1:2.5 135mm (K-lens) I discover a nice analogy to the second edition Takumar: the greater gap, mark for F4. last marking 35 meters. If you would state that the Takumar has 58mm filter size, too, I could believe that the K SMC 2.5 135 is almost the same. BTW: I got the K-lens from ebay yesterday and will do some shots with it in the afternoon. Chunky piece of glass, looks great. I am curious about the results ...
Regards Bernd -------------------------original message------------------------- Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 03:58:27 -0400 From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: SMCT 135/2.5 UPDATE Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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...... > <snip> ------------------------------
