Canon black 135mm f/3.5 vII or vIII

[colyn]

How do you go about determining if a black 135mm f/3.5 Canon RF lens is version II or version III?

 

[harry01562]

I'm guessing that you are using a listing done by Randol Hooper in the Viewfinder Magazine. Using that, check the distance scale at the base of the lens. If it is just marked in feet, type II, if marked in both feet and meters, type III.

The most recent listing of these is available on the site hosted by Peter Kitchingman, which you should check out.

Harry

 

[cmogi10]

colyn your back?

 

[colyn]

colyn your back?

I've been around. Just not posting as much..

 

[colyn]

I'm guessing that you are using a listing done by Randol Hooper in the Viewfinder Magazine. Using that, check the distance scale at the base of the lens. If it is just marked in feet, type II, if marked in both feet and meters, type III.

The most recent listing of these is available on the site hosted by Peter Kitchingman, which you should check out.

Harry

I have version III then since mine has both ft. and meters.
Thanks

 

[venchka]

Me too

Me too

I have version III then since mine has both ft. and meters.
Thanks

Anything really different about the II & III? Optically?

 

[harry01562]

AFAIK, there is no optical change between the lenses. This was just a change to make marketing easier in countries with either system. Most of the changes in the RF line didn't occur as a result of optical design, but were mount design, mostly. Anyone got a list of the changes that were related to glass? I could make up one, but it would take a bit of research, which I'm sure has already been done.

Harry

 

[venchka]

Thanks Harry. That's close enough for me & makes sense.

 

[Kim Coxon]

Maybe not. According the the Canon Camera museum pictures, the Type II could be marked in both as well. See here. http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/s/f_s3.html

The II was slightly lighter and the gap between the focus ring and aperture ring seems to be slightly less. On some of the lenses such as the 50's, you can tell by the width of the distance scale.

Kim

I have version III then since mine has both ft. and meters.
Thanks

 

[venchka]

In looking at the photos, it sure looks like the same lens. That wouldn't surprise me either. They may not have had photos of all lenses.

Type II : 438g
Type III: 424g

With a difference of only 14g, you would need a nice beam balance to tell the difference. I have one of those. In about a month I'll throw mine on the scale and see what happens. Mrs. Venchka just bought a digital kitchen scale. I'll use that too.

 

[harry01562]

I looked at the photos of the lens(es), and had the same thought... 2 sides of the same lens. It wouldn't be the first time Canon's Museum was not completely accurate.

They just were not concerned with their history early on, probably more interested in survival. It's a good thing they published so many different catalogs, brochures, and "puff-pieces" during those years. I don't know how early 40's are documented, as I find almost nothing from that period.

Being interested in the entire output.. up to the last FD, the T90.. I have collected as much as I could reasonably find of their literature. Just another kind of GAS.

Harry