 Posted: Sat Jul 20, 2019 2:35 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
papasito wrote:
| stevemark wrote: |
| kiddo wrote: |
| blotafton wrote: |
The lens and weight:
|
Thats a lot of weight ,isn't it? I've been offered a 135 2.5 for 40 euros , good condition , never seen one in reality ,is that worth it? Would the 2.5 be bigger size that this one??? |
The Mamyia SX 2.8/135mm is 505g (similar to the famous [4/4] Rokkors). The Konica AR 2.5/135mm is 665g, and the nFD 2.9/135mm is 677g. So yes, both the SX and the AR 2.5/135mm are heavy lenses.
Is the AR 2.5/135mm worth 40 Euros? I certainly would say yes! Unless you have other, faster lenses of course. The Konica is well built, no wobbles and no play, it feels solid, you can focus it down to 1.2 m which is useful for tight portraits (most 2.8/135mm lenses go only to 1.5m). Focusing is quite stiff, compared to the much smoother Rokkors, and the Hexanon AR aperture ring generally is a pain (difficult to turn and very easy to lock in the "AE" position). The Konica 2.5/135mm has a lower contrast than the Rokkor 2.8/135mm [4/4], and less CAs. The Konica, stopped down to f5.6, has no visible CAs at all, which is quite remarkable.
For size, see the image below.
Stephan
 |
The mamiya is a heavy lens, yes.
But I have to say that my third copy is really sharp. Sharpest than any of my hexanon 135.
Great lens!!!!!! |
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
