seany65
Well-known
Hello all, I'm tempted to buy a Tokina rmc 35-135mm f4-f4.5 lens, even though it's a tad (or is it a "smidgin", or a "tidgy bit"?) slow at the wide end, as it has a couple of good reviews on the pentax lens forum and it has a depth-of-field scale on it (which the Tamron ad2 model 40A does not). I've also seen some pics taking using it on the web and they look good (although I've no idea if they've been fiddled with).
But there's a problem, there is also a Tokina RMC 35-135mm f3.5-f4.5 which looks very similar but there are no reviews on the pentax lens forum.
I've g**gled both but there doesn't seem to be much info on the f4-f4.5 version. allphotolenses has no info on it and rates the f/3.5-4.5 at 3 stars.
Does anyone have any info about either lens or, better still, both versions?
Thank you for any help anyone can provide.
But there's a problem, there is also a Tokina RMC 35-135mm f3.5-f4.5 which looks very similar but there are no reviews on the pentax lens forum.
I've g**gled both but there doesn't seem to be much info on the f4-f4.5 version. allphotolenses has no info on it and rates the f/3.5-4.5 at 3 stars.
Does anyone have any info about either lens or, better still, both versions?
Thank you for any help anyone can provide.
seany65
Well-known
Having done some research it seems that both of the lenses I mentioned previously have Tokina's red "TL" or "II" on the front of the lens and also it seems that symbol has no real meaning as far as quality goes.
So both being "RMC", (though the f4/4.5 is apparently also an "SMZ") and both having the red symbol and I've still not found any year-listing for their lenses (just lists of the different lens letter/number combinantions) I've still got no idea which is later or if either is better.
So both being "RMC", (though the f4/4.5 is apparently also an "SMZ") and both having the red symbol and I've still not found any year-listing for their lenses (just lists of the different lens letter/number combinantions) I've still got no idea which is later or if either is better.
CMur12
Veteran
Since you've gotten no replies, I'll post a couple of thoughts:
I think Tokina provided a version of the 35-105 and 35-135, f3.5-4.5 to Minolta. Minolta would only have made such an arrangement if they found these lenses up to a decent standard of performance and durability. (Hopefully, I'm not assuming too much.) I don't know if this would imply that the f3.5-4.5 is better than the f4.0-4.5, or if they were issued at different times.
- Murray
I think Tokina provided a version of the 35-105 and 35-135, f3.5-4.5 to Minolta. Minolta would only have made such an arrangement if they found these lenses up to a decent standard of performance and durability. (Hopefully, I'm not assuming too much.) I don't know if this would imply that the f3.5-4.5 is better than the f4.0-4.5, or if they were issued at different times.
- Murray
seany65
Well-known
Thanks for the reply Murray.
Yes, I found out about the Tokina/minolta link when I clicked on a comparison set of pics which someone posted on another forum. The OP tested 8 35-105mm's and compared them at particular focal lengths with fixed length lenses.
I've just also found out that both the f3.5 and f4 versions were also labelled "SMZ", so I can't use that designation to seperate them either.
Why the ruddy-blime can't makers make things simple for us, eh? lol.
Yes, I found out about the Tokina/minolta link when I clicked on a comparison set of pics which someone posted on another forum. The OP tested 8 35-105mm's and compared them at particular focal lengths with fixed length lenses.
I've just also found out that both the f3.5 and f4 versions were also labelled "SMZ", so I can't use that designation to seperate them either.
Why the ruddy-blime can't makers make things simple for us, eh? lol.
seany65
Well-known
Great News! After extensive on-line research I've found out that 3 things:
1) The Tokina RMC f4/4.5 has an "SMZ" model number of "135".
2) The Tokina RMC f3.5/4.5 has an "SMZ" model number of "335".
3) Therefore, the 335 model is 200 times better than the 135 model.
I'd really like to believe that as I've just pulled the trigger on an SMZ 335.
Even before finding out if either was any better, even by a tidge, than the other.
1) The Tokina RMC f4/4.5 has an "SMZ" model number of "135".
2) The Tokina RMC f3.5/4.5 has an "SMZ" model number of "335".
3) Therefore, the 335 model is 200 times better than the 135 model.
I'd really like to believe that as I've just pulled the trigger on an SMZ 335.
Even before finding out if either was any better, even by a tidge, than the other.
seany65
Well-known
In case anyone else ever looks for info on the Tokina RMC 35-135mm lenses I'll post this here.
I've been on the pentax forum (yet again), in the Tokina zooms section of the "Third party lens reviews" and in the blurb for the RMC SMZ 105 reviews section, it says:
"Relabelled SMZ105 when the lens line up was remodelled, then succeeded by the similar, but optically updated, SMZ305 35-105mm f3.5-4.5."
So if Tokina used that same numbering scheme for the SMZ 135 and SMZ 335, then it seems the RMC SMZ 335 IS a little bit later than the RMC SMZ 135, and perhaps has also been slightly updated rather than just relabelled? This "re-design rather than just re-numbering" idea would be borne out by the fact that tha max aperture range on the SMZ 135 was f4-f4.5 and on the SMZ 335 it's f3.5-f4.5.
I've been on the pentax forum (yet again), in the Tokina zooms section of the "Third party lens reviews" and in the blurb for the RMC SMZ 105 reviews section, it says:
"Relabelled SMZ105 when the lens line up was remodelled, then succeeded by the similar, but optically updated, SMZ305 35-105mm f3.5-4.5."
So if Tokina used that same numbering scheme for the SMZ 135 and SMZ 335, then it seems the RMC SMZ 335 IS a little bit later than the RMC SMZ 135, and perhaps has also been slightly updated rather than just relabelled? This "re-design rather than just re-numbering" idea would be borne out by the fact that tha max aperture range on the SMZ 135 was f4-f4.5 and on the SMZ 335 it's f3.5-f4.5.
seany65
Well-known
The RMC SMZ335 turned up a couple of hours ago.
This lens has an aperture ring that is clicked in half-aperture steps except between f16 and f22 (just like Tamron lenses) and on my Nikon F301, seems to be working exactly the same as my Nikkor AIs 50mm f1.4 and all of my Tamron lenses.
It is a compact lens that is only a little longer than my Tamron 35-70mm 17A when at 35mm and infinity, and it fits into the hard case for my Tamron 70-150mm 20A, though it is perhaps a little loose inside that case. It is reassuringly metal and glass so it feels like a lens should. It does exhibit some lens creep when the lens is pointed downwards below the horizontal. However I haven't checked the angle the lens has to be at for this to happen and it seems that most of the time it would be best to be at the level of the object being photographed is rather than being pointed down at it.
It also has the same focus and aperture directions as my Nikkor lens and unlike my Tamrons there's no need to be extra-careful to make sure the lens mount doesn't come off in my hands.
EDIT:
Forgot to add that it has a "Macro" mode that goes to 1:4, but only at the long end, and it seems pretty "positive" while in that mode eg. no accidental zooming out and so accidentally getting out of Macro mode.
This lens has an aperture ring that is clicked in half-aperture steps except between f16 and f22 (just like Tamron lenses) and on my Nikon F301, seems to be working exactly the same as my Nikkor AIs 50mm f1.4 and all of my Tamron lenses.
It is a compact lens that is only a little longer than my Tamron 35-70mm 17A when at 35mm and infinity, and it fits into the hard case for my Tamron 70-150mm 20A, though it is perhaps a little loose inside that case. It is reassuringly metal and glass so it feels like a lens should. It does exhibit some lens creep when the lens is pointed downwards below the horizontal. However I haven't checked the angle the lens has to be at for this to happen and it seems that most of the time it would be best to be at the level of the object being photographed is rather than being pointed down at it.
It also has the same focus and aperture directions as my Nikkor lens and unlike my Tamrons there's no need to be extra-careful to make sure the lens mount doesn't come off in my hands.
EDIT:
Forgot to add that it has a "Macro" mode that goes to 1:4, but only at the long end, and it seems pretty "positive" while in that mode eg. no accidental zooming out and so accidentally getting out of Macro mode.
seany65
Well-known
I've just bought a manual for the smz335.
In it, were told that ALL of the apertures change with focal length, and so for example f22 at 35mm becomes f28 at 135mm, and so when using hand held meters we have to compensate for this by moving the f-number on the aperture ring to line up with the short orange line next to the white index line when shooting at 135mm or thereabouts, and when shooting around the middle of the range the f-stop being used has to be moved to inbetween the orange and white lines.
Why this idea that all the apertures change with focal length on a variable maximum aperture lens hadn't occurred to me I don't know.
I've posted this here for anyone else who may want info about this lens, but mostly as a way of trying to make it sink in to my head.
In it, were told that ALL of the apertures change with focal length, and so for example f22 at 35mm becomes f28 at 135mm, and so when using hand held meters we have to compensate for this by moving the f-number on the aperture ring to line up with the short orange line next to the white index line when shooting at 135mm or thereabouts, and when shooting around the middle of the range the f-stop being used has to be moved to inbetween the orange and white lines.
Why this idea that all the apertures change with focal length on a variable maximum aperture lens hadn't occurred to me I don't know.
I've posted this here for anyone else who may want info about this lens, but mostly as a way of trying to make it sink in to my head.