Kiron (aka Kino) made a lot of fine lenses for other companies and
offered a 35~105 f/3.5~4.5 under their own name. Can't recall if the
filter size is the 55mm though . . .
Anyone have one of those in hand to compare?
On 3/7/06, John Hermanson <omtech1@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Some interior parts are so different from any other Zuikos, I still say,
> not made by Olympus. Maybe not Tokina, but not Olympus.
> John Hermanson
> Camtech Photo Services, Inc.
> 21 South Lane, Huntington NY 11743
> 631-424-2121 | Olympus OM Service since 1977
> http://www.zuiko.com | omtech1 AT verizon.net
> Bernard Frangoulis wrote:
> >>I thinks it's a re-badged Tokina. Parts list uses old "SC" parts
> >>nomenclature instead of common CA, CE, ZC, ZE parts numbers.
> > Moose, may I quote you here? This is what you said on 24/03/04:
> >>I've always been curious about the occasional posts suggesting that the
> >>35-105/3.5-4.5 might have been made by Tokina, presumably a custom
> >>version of the Tokina SMZ 35-105/3.5-4.3. So I invested (ha, ha) $44 in
> >>a Tokina to satisfy my curiosity.
> >>I can see where someone could at a casual look think they might be the
> >>same underneath. They are very similar in size, weight and overall
> >>appearance except for very different rubber focus/zoom ring covers. On
> >>closer inspection, I note the following:
> >>1. Coating reflections are different colors, indicating different
> >>coating design/technology, and size/depths, indicating different
> >>internal element shape/configuration.
> >>2. Front mounting of the front element of the zooming group is slightly
> >>3. The Zuiko focusing helicoid takes considerably less rotation of the
> >>focus/zoom ring to get to its
> >>minimum of 1.5m and than the Tokina takes to go to its minimum of 1.6m
> >>4. Zoom ring travel from 35-105mm is 20.8mm on the Zuik and 20.6mm on
> >>the Tokina.
> >>5. Although the close focus mechanism uses the same principle of acting
> >>as an extension tube, the ring moves in opposite directions on the 2
> >>lenses, locks into CU position on the Zuiko, but not on the Tokina and
> >>has a different extension length, 6.6mm on the Zuiko and 8.3mm on the
> >>6. Both have 6 blade diaphrams that point their fingers clockwise, but
> >>they are mounted opposite ways, with the fingers on the Zuiko toward the
> >>front and the Tokina to the back. The Zuiko hexagon is also a bit more
> >>symmetrical and consistent as it is stopped down.
> >>7. The rear element of the Tokina is considerably larger and mounted
> >>into its cell differently than the Zuiko.
> >>8. The finish of the visible part of the mount is classic Oly matte on
> >>the Zuiko and shiny on the Tokina.
> >>9. The mechanisms that convey aperture setting to the pin on the rear
> >>and operate the diaphram from the other pin on the rear are quite
> >>different designs, with the Zuiko using the same basic design as in
> >>other Zuikos I've had apart.
> >>10. The Zuiko has 16 elements in 12 groups and the Tokina has 16 in 13.
> >>11. Ths Zuiko is styled pretty much like the 70-150 and 35-70/3.6 &
> >>35.-4.5 except fot the close-up ring, which isn't on those zooms, but it
> >>is in the same relative position as the zoom rings on those 2 touch
> >>models. I assume the otherwise odd design of the CU ring with the groove
> >>around the middle is to differentiate it from the zoom rings on the
> >>others. The Tokina is styled just like the other Tokina zooms I have.
> >>Finish of the body surfaces is very similar.
> >>12. The nose of the Tokina in front of the zoom ring is much shorter
> >>than on the Zuiko, so the Oly hood doesn't clamp on as securely. The
> >>Tokina hood, which I didn't get, is a screw-in design which apparently
> >>is calculated for use with a filter and uses something like an empty
> >>filter ring when a filter isn't used to keep the hood in the right
> >>place. The Oly solution of a clamp on hood that doesn't interfere with
> >>filter use is much nicer.
> >>My conclusion? It is extremely unlikely that the Zuiko is an adaptation
> >>of the Tokina. There are just too many differences that wouldn't make
> >>sense if it were, especially things like reversing and changing the
> >>length of travel of the CU helicoid, changing the pitch of the focusing
> >>helicoid and changing the internal design of the auto aperture
> >>mechanisms. It also really does appear to me from the reflections that
> >>the internal elements differ quite a bit in surface curvatures and/or
> >>Which is the better lens? I'll probably never know. I'll try some pics
> >>with the Tokina, but the chances of carefully matched comparisons are
> >>slim to none. The zoom action on my Zuiko has always been quite stiff.
> >>The Tokina is nicer without being in any way loose or liable to creep.
> >>Build quality? A toss up from external visuals and handling. The CU
> >>rings are both plastic, but the Tokina doesn't look like it. Which one
> >>to use on a chrome OM-1? The Tokina 'cause it is a silver nose! (Just a
> >>joke folks! Easy now!)
> >>A compulsive Moose
> > Anyway, a very fine and useful performer. I like it very much.
> > Bernard
> -- No attachments (even text) are allowed --
> -- Type: text/x-vcard
> -- File: omtech1.vcf
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx