| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
blende8
Joined: 29 Sep 2007
Posts: 260
Location: Bremen, Germany
|
 Posted: Sat Nov 27, 2010 11:48 am Post subject: |
 |
|
blende8 wrote:
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.
_________________
Best wishes, Wieland
K-1, K-5IIs
Pentax, mysterium quod absconditum fuit ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Laurentiu Cristofor
Joined: 23 Oct 2010
Posts: 524
Location: WA, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 29, 2010 8:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Laurentiu Cristofor wrote:
| Bob van Sikorski wrote: |
| mine 37A has 85mm lenght (without screw |
My 100mm measurement included the screwmount as well as the rear cap.
_________________
http://www.ipernity.com/home/2419272
https://laurphoto.blogspot.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
martinsmith99
Joined: 31 Aug 2008
Posts: 6950
Location: S Glos, UK
Expire: 2013-11-18
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 8:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
martinsmith99 wrote:
Chinon 135mm F2.8 78mm top to toe.
It's not too fat either at 212mm around.
_________________
Casual attendance these days |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
enzodm
Joined: 11 Sep 2010
Posts: 350
Location: Italy
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 11:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
enzodm wrote:
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  .
_________________
Canon 60D, Tamron 17-50VC, Canon 55-250IS, Sigma 50-150/2.8 plus:
Wide: Mir 20/3.5, Kenlock 24/2.8, Tamron 28/2.5, Yashikor 35/2.8, Mir 37/2.8
Fifties: Voigtländer Color Ultron 50/1.8, Pentacon 50/1.8, Zenitar 50/1.9, Leica Summicron 50/2, CZJ Pancolar 50/2, CZJ Tessar 50/2.8, Industar 50/3.5 , Rikenon 55/1.4, Petri 55/1.8, Helios 58/2
In the middle: Cyclop 85/1.5, Nikon 100/2.8
135s: Tamron 135/2.5, CZJ Sonnar 135/3.5, Jupiter 135/3.5, CZJ Triotar 135/4, Tamron Twin Tele 135-225
Tele: Soligor 200/2.8, Pentax Super Takumar 200/4, Hanimex 400/6.3, Makinon 500/8
Various: Schneider-Kreuznach Componar 135/4.5, Tominon 105/4.5, Vest Pocket Kodak meniscus, Wray Supar 2"/4.5
Sony Nex 6 plus:
Industar 69 28/2.8, Fujian 35/1.7, Rokkor 50/1.4, Jupiter 50/2, Cosmicar 50/2.8, Industar-22 50/3.5, Leitz Elmar 90/4, Canon Serenar 100/4
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
William
Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Posts: 489
Location: London
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 12:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
William wrote:
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DSG
Joined: 04 Mar 2007
Posts: 544
Location: London, UK.
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 12:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
DSG wrote:
| 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!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
8310
Joined: 05 Jun 2010
Posts: 123
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 12:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
8310 wrote:
This is one of those girth vs diameter situations.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blende8
Joined: 29 Sep 2007
Posts: 260
Location: Bremen, Germany
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 1:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
blende8 wrote:
Perhaps we should turn to volume now?
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?
_________________
Best wishes, Wieland
K-1, K-5IIs
Pentax, mysterium quod absconditum fuit ...
Last edited by blende8 on Wed Dec 01, 2010 4:33 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
8310
Joined: 05 Jun 2010
Posts: 123
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 2:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
8310 wrote:
That is an astonishingly flat volume.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
enzodm
Joined: 11 Sep 2010
Posts: 350
Location: Italy
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 2:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
enzodm wrote:
| blende8 wrote: |
Perhaps we should turn to volume now?
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 .
_________________
Canon 60D, Tamron 17-50VC, Canon 55-250IS, Sigma 50-150/2.8 plus:
Wide: Mir 20/3.5, Kenlock 24/2.8, Tamron 28/2.5, Yashikor 35/2.8, Mir 37/2.8
Fifties: Voigtländer Color Ultron 50/1.8, Pentacon 50/1.8, Zenitar 50/1.9, Leica Summicron 50/2, CZJ Pancolar 50/2, CZJ Tessar 50/2.8, Industar 50/3.5 , Rikenon 55/1.4, Petri 55/1.8, Helios 58/2
In the middle: Cyclop 85/1.5, Nikon 100/2.8
135s: Tamron 135/2.5, CZJ Sonnar 135/3.5, Jupiter 135/3.5, CZJ Triotar 135/4, Tamron Twin Tele 135-225
Tele: Soligor 200/2.8, Pentax Super Takumar 200/4, Hanimex 400/6.3, Makinon 500/8
Various: Schneider-Kreuznach Componar 135/4.5, Tominon 105/4.5, Vest Pocket Kodak meniscus, Wray Supar 2"/4.5
Sony Nex 6 plus:
Industar 69 28/2.8, Fujian 35/1.7, Rokkor 50/1.4, Jupiter 50/2, Cosmicar 50/2.8, Industar-22 50/3.5, Leitz Elmar 90/4, Canon Serenar 100/4
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dimitrygo
Joined: 01 Apr 2009
Posts: 561
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 3:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
dimitrygo wrote:
To equalize the difference in 'speed' you need to multiply the volume by the F number  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scheimpflug
Joined: 06 Feb 2010
Posts: 1888
Location: New Zealand / USA
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 11:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Scheimpflug wrote:
| dimitrygo wrote: |
| To equalize the difference in 'speed' you need to multiply the volume by the F number |
Great idea.
Just as an academic exercise, here is another way to obtain a very compact 135mm:
On the right is my Soligor 135/3.5. On the left is a Nikon 50/1.8 Series E coupled with a Soligor 3x TC. The combo on the left measures just 63mm from the flange, or 68mm including the mount protrusions. The width at the widest part is 62mm.
Granted, this combo produces a 150mm equivalent. But if you replace the 50/1.8E with a 45/2.8P, the focal length would be an exact 135mm and the package length would shrink by 7mm to just 56mm from the flange or 61mm including protrusions. Very compact indeed!  "Cheating" aside, I believe this is the shortest so far...
_________________
Sigma DP1, Nikon D40 (hers ), Polaroid x530, Pentax P30t, Pentax P50, (P30t/P50 K-A to Nikon F body mount conversion)
Nikon: 18-55/3.5-5.6 "G ED II DX" (F) Soligor: 28/2.8 (FL->F converted), 135/3.5 (F), 3x TC (F, modified) Kalimar: 28-85/3.5 (F)
Vivitar: 70-210/2.8-4.0 Version 3 (F), Tele 500/6.3 Preset (F), 19/3.8 (F) Minolta: 300/5.6 (SR/MC/MD pending F conversion)
Tamron: 28/2.8 (Adaptall) Panagor: 28/2.5 (FD) Aetna: 300/5.6 (F) Osawa: MC 28/2.8 (F)
Vintage Lenses: Dallmeyer: 1940s A.M. 14in 356mm f4 (ULF->M42) 1930s Adon Telephoto Taylor, Taylor & Hobson: 1880s Rapid Rectilinear 8 1/2 x 6 1/2 11.31in f/8 (LF->?)
Parts Lenses: Nikon 35-135/3.5-4.5 (F), Sigma 70-210/4.5 (F), Nikon 50/1.8 Series E (F) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nordentro
Joined: 24 Jun 2010
Posts: 4713
Location: Lillehammer, Norway
Expire: 2015-01-29
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2010 2:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nordentro wrote:
| ManualFocus-G wrote: |
And the winner is...the Fujita! 
 |
I finaly got the Fujita too
Nice lens, and it is a bit smaller
_________________
Lars | Manuellfokus.no |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
