Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

What is the smallest M42 135mm lens?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Nov 25, 2010 6:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
That's it then. The TAMRON TWIN-TELE wins at 68mm in length - front of lens to front of adapter. Unless someone can find something shorter?

What is the maximum diameter of the Fujita?


PostPosted: Thu Nov 25, 2010 7:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
And the winner is...the Fujita! Surprised



PostPosted: Thu Nov 25, 2010 7:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The Tele-Astranar 135mm was pretty small (sold, so I don't know the dimensions) but that was a T-mount:

http://forum.mflenses.com/tele-astranar-135mm-f3-5-t15013,highlight,astranar.html


PostPosted: Thu Nov 25, 2010 7:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Damn, fujita is on my watchlist Wink

Tamron Twin-Tele 135mm f4.5 vs Spiratone 135mm f1.8 size comparison Very Happy


PostPosted: Thu Nov 25, 2010 7:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ManualFocus-G wrote:
And the winner is...the Fujita! Surprised


I think mine Tarmon is a bit shorter than yours. I don't have that border on the top of the lens Wink But still, without the border the fujita is a bit smaller Very Happy


PostPosted: Thu Nov 25, 2010 7:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nordentro wrote:
Damn, fujita is on my watchlist Wink

Tamron Twin-Tele 135mm f4.5 vs Spiratone 135mm f1.8 size comparison Very Happy


Laughing Laughing Laughing


PostPosted: Thu Nov 25, 2010 7:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thats small but its also very slow...Perhaps a better question would be:
"What is the smallest 135mm f2.8 lens?", as surely most people go for faster f2.8 versions.
My M42 Vivitar 135mm f2.8 is just 86mm long (including the screw) at the infinity setting (extending to 100mm long at its 5ft closest focus distance) and its 61mm in diameter with a 52mm filter thread. Its a pre-select version with two aperture dials about an inch back from the front.
It has a beautiful 15 blade iris, giving a virtually perfectly circular aperture and the best bit is I only had to pay £2 for it!!!

Last edited by DSG on Sat Nov 27, 2010 2:53 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu Nov 25, 2010 10:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ManualFocus-G wrote:
And the winner is...the Fujita! Surprised


Looks like the Fujita takes it. Unless, of course, it's an optical illusion. Don't you have to wear vertical stripes to look taller, or is it horizontal stripes to look fatter? Oh, I can't remember now.... Smile Smile


PostPosted: Thu Nov 25, 2010 11:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Super Paragon 135 f2.8



88mm long at 1.5 Metre (full extension) from camera to front, 65mm dia'.

Maybe not the smallest, but still a compact lens.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 26, 2010 6:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'm sure my Chinon could compete. I'll measure it later when I get home.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 26, 2010 7:51 am    Post subject: Re: raynox Reply with quote
crm-114 wrote:
my tele raynox 135/2.8 is 70mm long, front to mount, excluding screw,

Anyone a shorter one?


PostPosted: Fri Nov 26, 2010 11:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
DSG wrote:
Thats small but its also very slow...Perhaps a better question would be:
"What is the smallest 135mm f2.8 lens?", as surely most people go for faster f2.8 versions.


It all depends... My Soligor 135/3.5 isn't a fast lens, but I would definitely be tempted to switch to a slower lens if there was one with a noticeable size reduction. A few mm in length and a few grams in weight may seem like small and insignificant differences, but it really adds up when you take 5+ lenses with you at a time. Wink


PostPosted: Fri Nov 26, 2010 7:33 pm    Post subject: Re: raynox Reply with quote
blende8 wrote:
crm-114 wrote:
my tele raynox 135/2.8 is 70mm long, front to mount, excluding screw,

Anyone a shorter one?


Thats cheating...you have to include the length of the screw thread as well...But obviously not the length with lenscaps fitted.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 26, 2010 11:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Only a partial quote Wink

though, with so many variable, (internal focusing, rear element protrusion, etc) the effective projection from the camera body may be the only objective (pun for the EU) possible.

Certainly its the only 'real world' perception:

Here is the Raynox contra the usual reference for 135mm:


PostPosted: Sat Nov 27, 2010 1:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
crm-114 wrote:
Here is the Raynox contra the usual reference for 135mm:


That's a good comparison, actually. Because short/wide is one type of "small", and narrow is another. Depending on your needs (camera bag being one of them), there could easily be a preference for one or the other.

Another thing worth considering is how susceptible a lens is to flare. My Soligor 135/3.5 definitely needs a hood, so I just keep one on it. This easily adds another 50% to the length... but hardly anything to the weight.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 27, 2010 11:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I think measuring from the flange, without screw, is ok.

So far:
Fujita 135/4.5 has the smallest diameter
Raynox 135/2.8 has the shortest length.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 29, 2010 8:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Bob van Sikorski wrote:
mine 37A has 85mm lenght (without screw


My 100mm measurement included the screwmount as well as the rear cap.


PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 8:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Chinon 135mm F2.8 78mm top to toe.

It's not too fat either at 212mm around.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 11:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well, I supposed my Vivitar 135/3.5 was very small (about 90mm length x 54mm diameter at mount) but reading here it is not Smile .


PostPosted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 12:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The early M42 Takumar 3.5/135 is really small. Not sure of the dimensions but I used to slot it into any pocket. Sharp too.

Edit: See it's already been mentioned.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 12:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
martinsmith99 wrote:
Chinon 135mm F2.8 78mm top to toe.

It's not too fat either at 212mm around.


Are you sure about that?...212mm is over 8" in diameter!!!


PostPosted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 12:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
This is one of those girth vs diameter situations. Wink


PostPosted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 1:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Perhaps we should turn to volume now? Wink
My reference is still the K-mount M135/3.5 which
is 64mm in diameter and 66mm in length, not counting screw/bajonett.
This gives me a volume of 212 cm^3 (V = pi*r^2*l).

Can any M42 lens beat that?

Last edited by blende8 on Wed Dec 01, 2010 4:33 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 2:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
That is an astonishingly flat volume. Laughing


PostPosted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 2:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
blende8 wrote:
Perhaps we should turn to volume now? Wink
My reference is still the K-mount M135/3.5 which
is 64mm in diameter and 66mm in length, not counting screw/bajonett.
This gives me a volume of 212 cm^2 (V = pi*r^2*l).

Can any M42 lens beat that?


well, put in volume, my Vivitar has about 206cm^3 . EDIT: looking back at the thread, it seems identical to Dollonds.

I think there are not so many threads around the web about who has the smallest one . Smile

Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2